Naomi D. Loewith

The appellant condominium corporation appealed the dismissal of its claim against the respondent bank.

The appellant's property manager had improperly transferred funds from the appellant's trust account at the bank, causing a loss of over $370,000.

At trial, the appellant succeeded against the property manager but its claim against the bank was dismissed.

On appeal, the appellant sought damages in negligence against the bank.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had not advanced negligence as a distinct claim at trial, likely for tactical reasons to avoid a contributory negligence defence.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict in favour of the respondent emergency room physician in a medical malpractice case following the death of Dave Palmer from cardiac arrest secondary to a bowel obstruction.

The appellants argued the trial judge failed to provide an adequate jury instruction by not reviewing the evidence or identifying factual issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while a trial judge should ordinarily outline the evidence, the failure to do so here did not result in a miscarriage of justice because the factual issues were straightforward and thoroughly canvassed by counsel in closing addresses.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to return an $850 deposit to the respondent.

The parties had negotiated a lease for a basement apartment, which the respondent argued included exclusive use of the laundry room.

When the appellant decided to alter the laundry room access, the respondent refused to move in and demanded her deposit back.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the Deputy Judge's conclusion that the appellant breached a fundamental term of the agreement.

The court also held that the Small Claims Court had jurisdiction to determine whether a tenancy agreement was concluded, and that the Deputy Judge's interventions during the trial did not amount to a reversible error.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal, along with a request to expedite proceedings.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances requiring rapid resolution compared to the regular process.