Noah Phillip Bonder

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application alleging age discrimination in credit card travel insurance.

The HRTO had dismissed the application at a preliminary hearing, finding that s. 22 of the Human Rights Code applied.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding that the adjudicator made a fundamental error by placing the onus on the applicant to prove that s. 22 did not apply, rather than on the respondents seeking to benefit from the exception.

The HRTO decisions were quashed and the matter was remitted for a new preliminary hearing before a different adjudicator.

The appellant insurer appealed a judgment declaring a life insurance policy valid, arguing fraudulent misrepresentation by the insured regarding a criminal conviction.

The policy had been in force for over five years, triggering an incontestability clause under the Insurance Act, requiring the insurer to prove fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal and motion to admit fresh evidence.

While acknowledging the application judge erred in disregarding admissions of the conviction, the Court found this error did not alter the ultimate conclusion that the insurer failed to prove the misrepresentation was made with the intent required for civil fraud (knowledge or recklessness), concluding it was likely due to mistake or negligence.

The applicant, beneficiary of his deceased father's life insurance policy, sought a declaration that the policy was valid and payable.

The respondent insurer refused the claim, alleging the deceased fraudulently misrepresented his criminal history on the application by denying any convictions in the preceding three years.

The court found the insurer failed to prove actual fraud on a balance of probabilities, as the evidence of the conviction date was unreliable and there was no proof of intent to deceive.

The policy was declared valid and binding.

The Appellant appealed Tarion's decision to deny her warranty claim regarding the lack of a railing around a ground floor balcony.

The Appellant argued she was promised a railing during negotiations and that the Ontario Building Code required one because the drop exceeded the regulatory minimum in one spot.

The Tribunal found that the Agreement of Purchase and Sale contained an entire agreement clause excluding prior representations, and did not require a railing.

Regarding the grading, the Tribunal found the drop exceeded the limit by a fraction of an inch in one small area, and ordered Tarion to add topsoil to bring it into compliance rather than installing a railing.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The applicants sought an extension of time to appeal a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for financial loss due to the non-completion of their new home.

The applicants missed the 15-day appeal deadline and delayed six months before notifying Tarion of their intent to appeal, after discovering additional cancelled cheques.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate a firm intention to appeal throughout the delay period, and that the merits of the case were not overwhelming enough to outweigh this failure.