Mary Lou Benotto

The wife brought a motion for leave to appeal an order finding her in contempt for failing to comply with undertakings and reattend an examination for discovery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order and noting the wife's attempts to thwart proper disclosure.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order made by the trial scheduling judge, who had ordered the plaintiff to pay costs thrown away as a term of granting a further adjournment of the trial.

The plaintiff also sought an adjournment of this motion to obtain transcripts.

The Divisional Court denied the adjournment of the motion and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in the scheduling judge's exercise of discretion to award costs as a term of adjournment, particularly given the history of the proceeding and a prior unpaid costs order.

The tenant cross-appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed his claim for damage to his goods.

The trial judge had found that the landlord was entitled to dispose of and store the tenant's bug-infested goods after the tenant failed to remove them.

The trial judge assessed the tenant's damages at $1,908 and the landlord's storage costs at $1,900, dismissing both claims due to the offsetting amounts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the cross-appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the landlord.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his action for false arrest and false imprisonment against the police and municipality.

He argued the trial judge should have considered negligence and erred in finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him without further investigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that negligence was not pleaded and the trial judge had no duty to advise the unrepresented appellant to amend his claim.

The Court also found no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the police had reasonable and probable grounds based on the complainants' statements.

The respondent requested an adjournment of its appeal to retain new counsel after its previous counsel was removed from the record.

The applicants opposed the adjournment, citing a pattern of delay and concerns about the respondent's solvency, and brought a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment but imposed strict terms, including making the new hearing date peremptory to the respondent, requiring the respondent to post security of $332,675, and ordering the respondent to pay $5,000 in costs thrown away.