Maija Pluto

The tenant appealed two decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board which allowed the landlord's eviction application for the purpose of her son's residential occupation.

The tenant argued the eviction was in retaliation for reporting a lead paint issue to Public Health.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law by confusing whether the good faith intention required under s. 48(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act needed to be that of the landlord or the landlord's son.

The Board's failure to distinguish between the landlord and her son also infected its analysis of the mandatory refusal provisions under s. 83(3).

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

A tenant in common sought partition of a long-held family cottage property on an island, relying on decades of separate use of a second cottage she had built and maintained.

The respondent opposed partition based on a family agreement restricting dealings with the property, alleged oppression, and the subdivision-control provisions of the Planning Act.

The court held that the agreement remained a relevant factor but did not clearly contract out of the Partition Act, that no malice, vexatiousness, oppression, or unclean hands were established, and that the Planning Act did not bar a partition order although municipal consent would be required for legal effect.

The application was granted subject to municipal approval.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Transport Canada decision approving the respondent's application to place a private mooring buoy in Georgian Bay.

The applicant challenged the decision on grounds including lack of effective public notice, failure to consider the respondent's compliance record, reliance on inaccurate information, and internally incoherent reasoning regarding safety.

The Court found the applicant lacked personal standing but granted public interest standing.

On the merits, the Court found that Transport Canada reasonably concluded effective notice was given, appropriately considered the compliance record under the Act, did not rely on relevant inaccurate information, and provided coherent reasoning regarding navigational safety.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the respondent law firm for unpaid legal fees.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred regarding service of the claim, full and frank disclosure, and the application of the test for setting aside default judgments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that service was properly effected under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the appellants failed to establish a plausible excuse for not defending the claim or an air of reality to any defence on the merits.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order denying an adjournment and deeming his motion to oppose a certificate of assessment abandoned.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding his difficulties retaining counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer test and the motion judge made no error in denying the adjournment given the appellant's repeated failures to file materials or comply with court orders over an 11-month period.

The applicant, Nazha Boulos as estate trustee, sought a declaration that her late husband's estate was the beneficiary of three Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF) accounts held by Duca Financial Services Credit Union for the late Yura Nicola Khagek.

Mr. Khagek had previously designated Mr. Boulos as the beneficiary of his Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) accounts, which were later automatically converted to RRIFs by Duca Financial without a new beneficiary designation.

The court, applying principles from the Succession Law Reform Act and relevant case law, found that the original RRSP beneficiary designation traced to the converted RRIF accounts, reflecting Mr. Khagek's clear intention to gift the funds to Mr. Boulos.

The application was granted, declaring Mr. Boulos's estate as the beneficiary of the RRIF accounts.

The defendant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the plaintiff employee damages for wrongful dismissal, mental distress, and substantial indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court upheld the wrongful dismissal damages, finding no error in the motion judge's calculation of the notice period.

However, the court set aside the $7,500 award for mental distress, finding that the employer acted in good faith and there was insufficient evidence of compensable mental distress.

The court also allowed the appeal on costs, reducing the trial costs from $35,000 to $10,000, noting the motion judge failed to properly consider proportionality and the unreasonableness of the plaintiff's bill of costs.

On appeal, the court concluded the appellant should have been successful at trial and awarded damages of $438,113 in addition to other relief.

The appellant had made a pre-trial Rule 49 offer to settle for $180,000.

The court determined the appellant was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

However, because a significant portion of the trial involved testing claims the appellant made which the trial judge found to be untrue, and many of those findings were undisturbed on appeal, the costs award was adjusted to reflect that the trial was not an unqualified success for the appellant.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claims for a beneficial interest in the family home or equitable damages for services rendered to his mother, as well as the dismissal of his application to revoke his sister's power of attorney.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge erred in allocating the burden of proof for unjust enrichment by requiring the appellant to prove a 'net benefit'.

Applying the correct framework from Kerr v. Baranow, the Court awarded the appellant $438,113 in equitable damages for domestic services.

The Court also admitted the trial judge's findings of undue influence as fresh evidence and revoked the sister's power of attorney.

The plaintiff, a 72-year-old security guard, was terminated after 12 years of service.

The employer provided a letter stating employment would end in a few months but gave no firm date, and the plaintiff continued working for seven months before being abruptly fired without statutory entitlements.

The plaintiff mitigated his damages by finding new employment and brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court found the initial notice was insufficient as it lacked a firm date and the employment continued beyond the 13-week regulatory period.

The court awarded damages for breach of contract and additional damages for mental distress due to the employer's unfair conduct.