Luigi Di Pierdomenico

The appellant, a police officer, brought an action against the police association, the police board, and various officers for workplace-related complaints.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute arose from the employment relationship and was governed by the collective agreement and the Police Services Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that the legislative scheme provides a comprehensive mechanism for resolving such disputes, including the appointment of a conciliation officer under section 123(1) of the Act.

The appellant, a small contractor, appealed a trial judgment regarding a complex construction dispute over a marina dredging project.

The trial judge had dismissed most of the appellant's claims and awarded punitive costs against a co-defendant, along with a Bullock order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals on the merits, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

However, the Court allowed the appeals regarding costs, holding that the test for solicitor-and-client costs was not met and that a Bullock order was inappropriate in the circumstances.

Costs were varied to a partial indemnity scale.

The appellant, a small contractor, appealed a trial judgment regarding a complex construction dispute over a marina dredging project.

The trial judge had dismissed most of the appellant's claims and awarded punitive costs against a co-defendant, along with a Bullock order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals on the merits, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

However, the Court allowed the appeals regarding costs, holding that the test for solicitor-and-client costs was not met and that a Bullock order was inappropriate in the circumstances.

Costs were varied to a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff sued the defendant lawyer, Highley, and his insurer, LPIC, for professional negligence based on discussions Highley had with the plaintiff's lawyer concerning a priorities motion.

Highley had been retained by LPIC to defend another lawyer in a related matter, and the interests of Highley's client and the plaintiff were aligned at the time.

The motion judge refused to grant summary judgment dismissing the action against Highley and LPIC.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal and granted summary judgment, holding that a lawyer does not owe a duty of care to a non-client represented by their own counsel, even when their interests are aligned, due to a lack of proximity and compelling policy reasons.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment following the respondent being noted in default.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

The Court directed a reference to determine equalization of net family properties, noting uncontradicted evidence of the respondent's pension.

The Court also ordered the respondent to pay $100 per month for the children's special expenses.

The Court dismissed the appeal regarding spousal support, finding the award within the acceptable range, and dismissed the tort claim for infliction of nervous shock due to a lack of causal link.

The appellant appealed a judgment dealing with spousal support and ancillary orders after his pleadings were struck at trial.

The Court of Appeal upheld the spousal support amount of $1,515 per month, finding the appellant had notice of the amount in issue despite the Notice of Application claiming less.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's decisions not to time-limit support, to defer review for three years, and to change access drop-off points.

The appeal was allowed only to set aside the order regarding pension benefits due to a lack of evidence, and to correct a typographical error in the support amount.