Martin Sclisizzi

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its appeal from a Master's decision.

The Master had denied the defendant's request to substitute its Manager of Environmental Health and Safety for its in-house counsel as the corporate representative for examinations for discovery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the lower court's decision, and affirming that there is no blanket exclusion of lawyers from discovery simply because of solicitor-client privilege.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision to certify a union without considering the employer's late-filed response.

The Board had concluded that the word 'shall' in section 128.1(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 was mandatory, precluding it from considering information filed after the two-day statutory time limit.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was correctness.

The Court held that the Board erred in its interpretation, finding that 'shall' in this context is directory and that the Board has the discretion to remedy the breach and consider late-filed information.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board.

The respondent school board brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the applicant union in support of its application for judicial review of an arbitrator's interim award concerning a teacher's discharge.

The union argued the affidavit was necessary to establish an agreement between the parties and a breach of natural justice regarding the arbitrator's findings on culpable conduct and culminating incidents.

The court found the affidavit failed to establish the alleged agreement, was inconsistent with the record, and did not demonstrate a breach of natural justice or an absence of evidence.

The motion was granted, and the entire affidavit was struck from the record.

The appellant sued the corporate and personal defendants for the price of products supplied under an oral distribution agreement.

The personal defendants successfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim against them personally.

On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal held that the motion judge failed to consider the admissions and positions taken by the personal defendants in their statement of defence and counterclaim, which raised a genuine issue for trial regarding their personal liability.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment was set aside.

The appellant purchased a used truck from the respondent dealership, financed by the respondent bank.

After discovering engine problems and a rolled-back odometer, the appellant abandoned the truck and sued for fraud, seeking rescission and damages for lost earnings.

The trial judge awarded the appellant $8,000 for engine repairs but dismissed the fraud and consequential damages claims, while granting the bank's counterclaim for the balance of the loan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings that there was no evidence of a vehicle switch or conspiracy to defraud.

The appellant appealed a decision striking a separate claim for discrimination from their pleadings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that discrimination claims do not give rise to a civil cause of action and must be addressed by the Human Rights Commission, though allegations of discrimination may still be pleaded as material facts supporting other causes of action.

Following a successful appeal that allowed the plaintiffs to add Canada Post Corporation as a defendant, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The court upheld the agreed $5,000 for the motion, now payable by Canada Post.

For the appeal, the plaintiffs sought $16,073.36 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court reduced the hourly rates claimed, disallowed fees for a second counsel, and fixed the appeal costs at $8,750 plus disbursements, applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable for the losing party to pay.

The plaintiff was seriously injured when the car she was a passenger in swerved off the road and struck a Canada Post super mailbox, which fell onto the car.

The plaintiff sought to amend the statement of claim to add Canada Post as a defendant, alleging negligence in the placement and anchoring of the mailbox.

The Master dismissed the motion, finding no duty of care to users of the roadway.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that it was not plain and obvious that Canada Post owed no duty of care to users of the roadway who might veer off and strike an unsafely anchored structure.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that reduced its damages for a breached commercial sublease due to a failure to mitigate, and dismissed its claims against the individual respondent for inducing breach of contract.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant had no obligation to renegotiate the sublease to mitigate damages, increasing the judgment against the corporate respondent.

However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the personal claims against the individual respondent, finding he acted in good faith as the directing mind of the corporation, which breached the lease simply due to a loss of revenue.

The award of solicitor-and-client costs to the individual respondent was also upheld due to unsubstantiated allegations of fraud.

The appellant teachers' association appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an arbitrator's awards regarding the scheduling of teachers' lunch breaks.

The arbitrator had ruled that under the collective agreement and Regulation 298 of the Education Act, teachers' 40-minute lunch breaks had to occur entirely within the scheduled interval for students' lunch breaks.

The Divisional Court reviewed the awards on a correctness standard and found them incorrect.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness because the arbitrator was interpreting an external statute intimately connected with his mandate.

The Court found the arbitrator's interpretation was reasonable and reinstated the awards.

The drawee bank certified a forged cheque drawn on its customer's account.

The collecting bank accepted the cheque for deposit into an account with a similar name to the payee, without obtaining an endorsement.

The drawee bank sued the collecting bank for the unrecovered proceeds, arguing the collecting bank was liable under the Canadian Payments Association Clearing Rules for failing to provide the missing endorsement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the collecting bank's appeal, holding that the fictitious payee rule in s. 20(5) of the Bills of Exchange Act applied, making the cheque a bearer instrument that could be negotiated by delivery alone.

The Court further held that the Bills of Exchange Act prevails over the CPA Clearing Rules.

The appellant challenged an order striking its amended statement of claim alleging that brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers and a related generic seller marketed pseudo-generic drugs through misleading origin representations and anti-competitive pricing practices.

The Court of Appeal held that the pleading could support a claim under s. 52 of the Competition Act, as well as related tort claims for unlawful interference with economic relations and conspiracy, because the alleged false statement of origin could have been made to promote a business interest and in a material respect.

The court agreed, however, that the double ticketing claim under s. 54 of the Competition Act and the Business Practices Act allegations were not viable on the pleaded facts.

The court also held that it was not plain and obvious that the Food and Drugs Act claim against the generic seller must fail.

The appeal was allowed in part with costs to the appellant.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award regarding the scheduling of lunch breaks for teachers and pupils.

The arbitrator had found that the collective agreement, which incorporated Regulation 298 under the Education Act, required teachers and students to have a 40-minute lunch break at the same time.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for the arbitrator's interpretation of outside legislation was correctness.

The Court found the arbitrator erred in reading 'at the same time' into the regulation, allowed the application, set aside the awards, and dismissed the grievance.

Two appeals were heard together from summary judgment dismissing actions arising out of agreements of purchase and sale.

The appellate court held the motions judge erred by characterizing the issue of whether a condition precedent had been fulfilled within a reasonable time as a question of law under rule 20.04(4).

That issue was one of fact and constituted a genuine issue for trial.

The motions had been narrowly framed around whether the agreements created valid equitable interests in land or offended s. 50 of the Planning Act.

Both appeals were allowed, the judgments were set aside, and the actions were ordered to proceed to trial, with costs in the cause.

The respondent purchaser agreed to buy a house from the appellant vendor.

The vendor reneged on the agreement before the closing date.

The purchaser sued for specific performance or damages in lieu thereof.

At trial, the purchaser elected to take damages.

The property value had increased significantly by the time of trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that damages in lieu of specific performance should be assessed as of the date of trial, not the date of breach, to provide a true substitute for specific performance.

The Court also held that the increase in value of the purchaser's own unsold residence should not be deducted from the damages award.