Michael E. Caruso

Brar Corp. (Applicant) sought a declaration of an easement over Regina Properties Ltd.'s (Respondent) adjoining property, an order to amend legal descriptions, an injunction, and damages.

Regina Properties Ltd. (Cross-Applicant) sought to vacate a registered notice of interest and an injunction against parking.

The court found that Regina Properties Ltd. had granted a license for access, not an easement, and dismissed Brar Corp.'s application.

The court granted Regina Properties Ltd.'s request to vacate the notice but dismissed its request for an injunction against parking, finding the trespass claim unsuitable for an application.

The plaintiff corporations moved to restore an action to the trial list after it had been struck by a judge several years earlier.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the delay in restoring the action was excessive and unexplained.

The court held that the proper framework under Rule 48.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is guided by Rule 1.04(1), emphasizing the just and expeditious determination of cases on their merits.

The court concluded the action was ready for trial and that the limited period of delay following removal of prior counsel had been adequately explained.

The action was therefore restored to the trial list.

The franchisor requested an order to remove itself as a respondent to a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation at a franchisee's restaurant.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it premature to determine the franchisor's liability without evidence of the legal relationship and franchise agreement, which should be assessed at a hearing.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order denying its request for full costs indemnification in a derivative action.

The applicant argued that leave was warranted due to a conflicting case, Turner v. Mailhot.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the alleged conflicting authority merely represented a difference in outcome, not a difference in principle, and that the motion judge had appropriately considered the circumstances of the case.

The appellant appealed an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned, noting that even if it had not been abandoned, it would have been quashed because an appeal of an interlocutory order lies to the Divisional Court with leave.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement regarding costs.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal at $3,500, inclusive of GST and disbursements, payable to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that his employer had just cause to terminate his employment.

The appellant had taken a lengthy vacation with no notice and without arranging a replacement, despite a clear warning not to do so.

The appellant argued that the employer condoned his misconduct by initially providing termination letters citing restructuring and offering severance pay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly assessed the breakdown of the employment relationship and that the employer's initial generosity and lack of resolve did not amount to an intention to condone the misconduct.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for damages for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a custom home.

The trial judge found the respondent was entitled to terminate the contract because a building permit could not be obtained for the appellant's non-conforming plans.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the breach of contract claim, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's insistence on non-conforming features caused the failure.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to order the return of the appellant's $20,000 deposit, as the agreement had been terminated.