Leigh Maryon Clark

The decision addresses motions for a representative order and for an interlocutory injunction in the context of the de-rostering of patients from a community health centre in Sault Ste.

Marie.

The plaintiff, Michael Da Prat, sought to represent both subscribers and non-subscribers of the Group Health Centre, challenging the de-rostering as a breach of contract, a violation of the Human Rights Code, and as oppressive conduct under corporate statutes.

The court granted a representative order only for the breach of contract claim on behalf of subscribers, denied it for other claims and for non-subscribers, and refused the interlocutory injunction, finding no strong prima facie case or irreparable harm.

The appellant, a condominium unit holder, appealed the dismissal of his application against the condominium corporation regarding noise complaints from an adjacent unit.

The original application sought relief under the Condominium Act, primarily an oppression remedy (s. 135), and damages.

The application judge found the corporation's response to the complaints reasonable and dismissed the application, noting that the unit owner causing the noise was not a party, precluding certain remedies.

On appeal, the appellant's new counsel attempted to re-frame the argument to focus on a compliance order under s. 134 (nuisance).

The Court of Appeal refused to entertain this new argument, emphasizing that it was not properly raised below and would require fact-finding.

The Court affirmed the application judge's finding that the corporation's conduct was not oppressive, as it had taken reasonable steps to address the complaints, and that the requested remedy of unit renovation could not be ordered without the affected unit owner being a party.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Anthony Pullano, appealed a trial judgment where a jury found that the respondent, Steven Hinder, committed battery but caused no injury, thus awarding no damages for battery.

The jury also awarded $50,000 to the respondent on his counterclaim for defamation.

The appellant sought nominal damages for battery and vicarious liability against corporate respondents, which the trial judge refused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge was not required to award nominal damages as it was the jury's function to consider damages, and nominal damages were not put to the jury.

Awarding nominal damages post-verdict would usurp the jury's role and undermine trial fairness.

Consequently, the issue of vicarious liability was moot.

The court also upheld the costs award against the appellant.

The defendants, Cushman & Wakefield Ltd. and Danny Ip, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract by Foremost Mortgage Holding Corporation (FMHC).

FMHC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Foremost Financial Corp. (FFC), relied on an appraisal report prepared by the defendants for mortgage financing.

The appraisal and a subsequent reliance letter explicitly authorized only FFC (and initially CTC Bank of Canada) to rely on it, with clear limiting language.

The court found that FFC and FMHC are separate legal entities and that the defendants did not owe a duty of care to FMHC, as FMHC was not an authorized party to rely on the appraisal.

Consequently, FMHC's claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation were dismissed.