Maurice Vaturi

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for damages against the respondent for allegedly improper installation of a propane system in his taxi, which he claimed caused the engine to overheat and seize.

The trial judge found insufficient evidence, specifically lacking expert testimony, to establish a causal link between the respondent's work and the engine failure.

On appeal, the appellant also moved to introduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

The motion to adduce fresh evidence was also dismissed because it could have been discovered with due diligence and did not address the core issue of causation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking the return of a $30,000 deposit and $20,000 in damages following the defendant's repudiation of a real estate agreement of purchase and sale.

The defendant had repudiated the agreement three days after acceptance when her financial situation unexpectedly improved, and she offered to return the deposit immediately.

The plaintiffs refused the deposit to maintain a claim for specific performance, which they later abandoned.

The court found no evidence of actual damages or out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the plaintiffs.

The court granted a declaration of repudiation, ordered the return of the deposit, awarded nominal damages of $1, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay costs to the defendant.

The applicant sought a declaration requiring its insurer to pay legal defence costs in a wrongful dismissal action brought by a former employee.

The insurance policy excluded indemnity for wrongful termination damages but contained an endorsement providing up to $100,000 in legal defence costs for claims including wrongful termination, subject to a deductible.

The insurer refused coverage, arguing the claim involved intentional conduct and was excluded by policy terms and the fortuity principle.

The court held that the pleadings contained at least a possibility that the claim fell within coverage and therefore triggered the insurer’s duty to defend.

The insurer was ordered to pay the applicant’s defence costs relating to the wrongful dismissal claim, subject to the deductible and policy limits.

The plaintiff moved under subrules 37.14(1)(c) and (2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing the action for delay.

Applying the four‑factor test from Reid v. Dow Corning Corp., the court found the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the litigation delay but established that the missed trial‑set‑down deadline resulted from inadvertence, that the motion to set aside was brought within a reasonable time, and that the defendants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice arising from the delay.

Considering the contextual approach endorsed in appellate authority, the court concluded that the absence of material prejudice justified setting aside the dismissal despite the plaintiff’s shortcomings.

The action was reinstated subject to directions requiring prompt filing of the trial record and completion of mediation, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the responding defendants’ costs.