Norman Silver

The plaintiff sought damages for multiple workplace assaults committed by the defendants, who operated the meat market where the plaintiff worked.

The court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence and corroborating witness testimony that the defendants carried out three separate attacks, including a beating and stabbing, causing physical injuries and post‑traumatic stress disorder.

The defendants admitted liability for assault but argued provocation to mitigate damages.

The court rejected the provocation defence, finding no credible evidence that the plaintiff initiated the violence, and held two defendants jointly liable as joint tortfeasors for the injuries arising from the coordinated attacks.

The court awarded general damages, past income loss, and exemplary damages.

The applicant father sought to vary a prior custody order under s. 17 of the Divorce Act to obtain sole custody of the parties’ child, relying heavily on an Office of the Children’s Lawyer report recommending a transfer of custody.

The court found the OCL report unreliable because key witnesses were not properly interviewed with interpreters and relevant medical and daycare information was not considered.

Evidence showed the child was thriving in the respondent mother’s care and that allegations of medical neglect and safety concerns involving the mother’s friend were unsupported by the evidence and prior investigations.

The court also found the father not credible and concluded that no material change in circumstances had been established within the meaning of s. 17(5) of the Divorce Act.

Even if a material change had been proven, transferring custody would not have been in the child’s best interests.

In litigation concerning environmental liabilities associated with the purchase of a paper mill asset from a receivership, the defendant purchaser sought leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to pursue a third party claim against the court-appointed receiver for alleged wilful negligence and intentional misrepresentation.

The receiver moved to dismiss or permanently stay the third party claim on the basis that leave had not been obtained and that the claim was frivolous.

Applying the low threshold for granting leave established in the case law, the court held that the pleadings and contractual documents disclosed a sufficient factual basis for the proposed claim.

The court granted leave nunc pro tunc to proceed against the receiver (rather than the receiver’s firm), dismissed the receiver’s motion to stay, and awarded costs to the purchaser.