Mick Hassell

The parties, two brothers, co-owned a property that was ordered to be sold under the Partition Act, with a reference directed to an Associate Justice to determine the distribution of proceeds.

The matter mistakenly proceeded before an Assessment Officer.

The applicant moved to vary the order to allow the Assessment Officer to continue, while the respondent cross-moved for a mini-trial to assert unpleaded equitable claims for his contributions to the property.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that Assessment Officers lack jurisdiction to conduct such references and that the respondent's equitable claims were not properly pleaded.

The matter was directed to proceed before an Associate Justice as originally ordered.

The plaintiff, having partially succeeded in her wrongful dismissal action, sought costs.

The defendant argued its earlier offer to settle engaged Rule 49.10, entitling it to costs from the offer date.

The court found the defendant's offer did not trigger Rule 49.10 due to an uncertain release condition, following D'Anscenzo v. Nichols.

Despite divided success, the plaintiff was deemed the successful party.

However, due to significant divided success (failure to prove damages for loss of book of business) and the plaintiff's rejection of a near-mirror offer, her costs were significantly reduced.

The court awarded the plaintiff 30% of her partial indemnity costs, totaling $72,000.00.

The plaintiff, a 54-year-old investment advisor with 24 years of service, was dismissed without cause.

During discovery, the defendant learned the plaintiff had copied confidential client emails to a personal USB key and alleged after-acquired cause.

The court found the misconduct was a lapse in judgment that did not warrant dismissal.

The court awarded a 24-month notice period and damages for lost commissions.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for damages for the lost opportunity to sell her book of business, finding she failed to prove she would have retired and sold it during the notice period, and dismissed her claim for bad faith damages.

The applicant father sought to set aside a domestic contract resolving child support and parenting issues, arguing the respondent mother repudiated the agreement through multiple breaches, including interfering with access and violating confidentiality provisions.

The corporate applicant, controlled by the father, also sought to enforce a mortgage on the mother's home.

The court found that while the mother breached certain access and confidentiality terms, her conduct did not amount to a repudiation or fundamental breach of the agreement as a whole.

The court also dismissed the mortgage enforcement action, finding the mother was not in default and was entitled to exercise her option under the agreement to redeem the mortgage.

The applications to set aside the agreement and enforce the mortgage were dismissed.

The plaintiffs and defendants entered into two joint venture agreements for real estate investments, where the defendants acted as passive investors holding legal title and mortgages, while the plaintiffs managed the properties and held beneficial ownership.

At the end of the four-year terms, the defendants refused to cooperate with the sale of the properties, claiming the plaintiffs breached the agreements and seeking beneficial ownership.

The court found that the defendants breached the agreements by unreasonably refusing to sell, dismissed the defendants' counterclaim, and ordered specific performance for the sale of both properties along with damages for the delay.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and awarded damages by a jury.

The defendant brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory requirement of a permanent serious impairment.

The court reviewed medical evidence showing the plaintiff suffered from chronic pain, depression, and cognitive deficits from a mild traumatic brain injury, which prevented him from completing high school or working.

The court found the injuries substantially interfered with his usual activities of daily living and were continuous and permanent.

The defendant's motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for defamation based on witness statements provided in a prior action.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, and alternatively, that the statements were protected by absolute privilege.

The court found the plaintiff's claim was discovered in March 2012, and the action, commenced in February 2016, was outside the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff's arguments for tolling or extension were rejected.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiff's action.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, Adam Papp, brought a claim for wrongful dismissal, defamation, and other damages against his former employer, Stokes Economic Consulting Inc., and its president, Ernest Stokes.

The defendants conceded wrongful dismissal without cause, disputing only the quantum of reasonable notice.

The court found that Ernest Stokes' statements made during a reference check, which led to Papp being denied a job, were substantially true and protected by qualified privilege, as Stokes did not act with malice or recklessness.

Consequently, the defamation claim and associated damages were dismissed.

The court awarded Papp four months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal, reduced by payments already received.