Mauro Marchioni

The appellant supplier appealed the dismissal of its breach of trust claim against the individual directors and an employee of a defunct contractor under s. 8 of the Construction Lien Act.

The trial judge had dismissed the claim, relying on a previous decision to hold that the supplier must intend the materials to be used for a known and identified improvement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, distinguishing the previous decision and holding that the plain language of the Act does not require such intent.

The Court found the directors and the employee who had effective control of accounting jointly and severally liable for the breach of trust.

The appellant appealed a judgment finding it had trespassed by appropriating 210 square metres of the respondents' land to construct a berm for a Tim Hortons.

The trial judge ordered an injunction to remove the encroachment and directed a trial on damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trespass finding or the injunction, noting the appellant offered no evidence that removing the encroachment would be oppressive.

The appellant homeowner appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent contractor damages for unpaid holdbacks and construction extras, while the contractor cross-appealed the partial allowance of the homeowner's counterclaim for deficiencies and delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in her assessment of the conflicting evidence regarding the construction of the new home, including the parties' failure to strictly follow the contractual procedure for requesting extras.

The appellant, a dissolved corporation, sought to enforce a judgment obtained prior to its dissolution.

The motions judge found that the corporation lacked capacity to carry out enforcement proceedings absent authority from the Crown, as its property had vested in the Crown upon dissolution pursuant to s. 244 of the Business Corporations Act.

The motions judge also found an accidental omission or slip under Rule 59.06.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motions judge's findings on both capacity and the application of Rule 59.06.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits, which were later terminated by the insurer.

She applied for arbitration seeking ongoing weekly benefits and housekeeping expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform her essential tasks, noting significant credibility issues, including video surveillance evidence that contradicted her claims of severe physical limitations.

The claims for weekly benefits and housekeeping expenses were dismissed, but the applicant was awarded her hearing expenses.