Osborne Godfrey Barnwell

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents fixed at $2,000.

The complainant, a correctional sergeant, was dismissed for alleged excessive use of force and orchestrating a sick leave call.

He filed a complaint with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the complainant failed to provide notice of his proposal to file a complaint to the Deputy Minister within the mandatory 14-day period under O. Reg. 378/07.

The Board found that the notice was provided 15 days after the complainant received notice of his dismissal.

As the timelines in the regulation are mandatory and the Board has no discretion to extend them, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

The appellant brought a motion for reconsideration of costs awarded in the underlying appeal, seeking substantial indemnity costs based on a prior settlement offer.

The Tax Court of Canada found the settlement offer was arbitrary and not based on facts in accordance with the law, and thus did not trigger the enhanced costs rule.

However, the Court exercised its discretion to increase the party and party costs of the underlying appeal from $4,000 to $8,110, and awarded $840 for the costs of the motion.

The plaintiff, acting as Estate Trustee, brought a motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property held by the deceased's sister.

The deceased and her sister had taken title as joint tenants following a refinancing arrangement, but the sister had not paid the agreed consideration.

After the deceased's death, the sister registered a survivorship application and further encumbered the property.

The court found that the transfer was gratuitous, raising a presumption of resulting trust, and that the Estate had met the threshold of demonstrating a triable issue regarding its interest in the property.

The motion was granted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff security company brought a Simplified Procedure action against the defendants for unpaid standby security services provided during a potential labour strike at the Sheraton hotel.

The court found that a contract was formed based on email exchanges between the parties and that the plaintiff performed the standby services.

The court awarded the plaintiff $32,950.80 in damages for the unpaid invoice.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for punitive damages, personal liability against the individual defendant, and the tort of deceit, finding insufficient evidence of dishonesty or an independent actionable wrong.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from the decision of J. Steele J. dated July 7, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

Following a successful motion to strike the plaintiff's statements of claim, the defendants sought costs of $15,702.14 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff opposed the costs award, arguing that his impecuniosity and partial success in retaining a battery claim against one defendant justified a reduction or no costs.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding that the defendants' success was not diminished by the remaining battery claim and that impecuniosity did not justify a reduction in these circumstances.

The court awarded the defendants costs as requested.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action on a motion for summary judgment, which was found to be statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge concluded the claim was discovered by August 21, 2015, more than two years before the action was commenced.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the interpretation or application of the discoverability principle under s. 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002, specifically regarding when a proceeding is an "appropriate means to seek to remedy" a loss.

The court rejected the argument that the appropriateness of litigation includes an assessment of its prospect of success or the ability to marshal evidence.

The appellant trucking company appealed a GST/HST assessment regarding its claim for HST monthly reporting periods.

The Minister assessed HST on chargebacks the appellant collected from its independent contractor drivers for diesel fuel and vehicular maintenance.

The Tax Court found that while the appellant did receive and resupply the diesel and maintenance services to the drivers, a significant portion of these supplies (69% for fuel and 95% for maintenance) were made in the United States, not in Canada.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the assessment was referred back to the Minister to reduce the assessed HST accordingly.

The plaintiff, a union member, commenced an action against three union officials for defamation, battery, and negligence arising from a union election dispute.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim.

The plaintiff delivered a fresh as amended statement of claim and later brought a cross-motion for leave to deliver a second fresh as amended statement of claim to add the union as a party and assert a claim for civil conspiracy.

The court struck all claims without leave to amend, except for the battery claim against one defendant, finding that the proposed civil conspiracy claim and the claims against the union were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff sued her insurer following a fire loss and a disputed appraisal process under section 128 of the Insurance Act.

The defendant insurer brought a Rule 21 motion seeking to force the plaintiff to elect whether she was challenging the appraisal itself (which would require judicial review at the Divisional Court) or proceeding with the action.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding it was not brought promptly under Rule 2.02 and Rule 21.02, as the defendant had been aware of the jurisdictional issue since the outset of the litigation and had already participated in a summary judgment motion.

The parties agreed that the moving parties would pay costs of the motion in the amount of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered costs in accordance with the parties' agreement.

The respondents (moving parties) sought reconsideration of a prior Court of Appeal decision that had quashed their appeal as interlocutory and dismissed their motion to stay.

The court dismissed the motion for reconsideration, finding that Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was inapplicable as no order had been issued and entered.

The court emphasized the principle of finality in litigation, stating that reconsideration is only granted sparingly and where the interests of justice require it.

The court noted that the moving parties had already pursued leave to appeal to the Divisional Court and were seeking further leave to appeal that decision, indicating acceptance of the original ruling.

A new argument regarding judicial bias based on counsel's race was deemed irrelevant to the determination of whether the original order was interlocutory or final.

The motion was brought by Robert M. Micheli and his law firm (Fourth Parties) to strike out the fourth party claim by Stella and Stainton Pinnock (Defendants) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being an abuse of process.

The Pinnocks' fourth party claim sought indemnity and damages related to a mortgage dispute and a failed property sale, alleging bad faith, misrepresentation, and negligence against Micheli, who acted for the mortgage lender.

The court found that many of the Pinnocks' claims were foreclosed by prior findings from the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada, which established that the Pinnocks had no equity in the property and their inability to close the sale was not caused by Micheli's conduct.

The court struck out the fourth party claim but granted leave to amend, providing guidance on permissible claims.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Fowler Byrne J. dated February 6, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $6,000.

The applicant, a unionized employee, sought judicial review of an arbitration award that settled his human rights grievance for $31,000, an amount he argued was inadequate.

The respondent union, supported by the employer, brought a motion to quash the application.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the applicant's complaints amounted to an allegation that the union breached its duty of fair representation, a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant lacked standing to seek judicial review of the arbitration award, as he did not fall within the narrow exceptions permitting individual employee standing.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for breach of an insurance contract and bad faith following a house fire.

The parties had previously engaged in an appraisal process under s. 128 of the Insurance Act but disagreed on the interpretation of the resulting report, specifically regarding deductions for prior payments and entitlement to replacement cost value versus actual cash value.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of credibility regarding the appraisal discussions, the cause of the delay in rebuilding, and the bad faith allegations that required a trial.

The court also granted in part the defendant's motion to strike certain paragraphs of the plaintiff's Reply.

The respondents moved to quash an appeal from an order that appointed an investigative monitor, released interim funds, granted an interim injunction, converted an application to an action, added parties, and refused to seal the court file.

The Court of Appeal held that all aspects of the order were interlocutory in nature, as they did not finally determine the substantive rights of the parties or the real matters in dispute.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction, as appeals from interlocutory orders lie to the Divisional Court with leave.

The applicant, a former justice of the peace removed from office for judicial misconduct involving sexual harassment, applied for judicial review of a panel's decision declining to recommend compensation for his legal costs.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness by not having an oral hearing and that the panel's decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no requirement for an oral hearing on costs and concluding the panel reasonably weighed factors including the nature of the misconduct and the vexatious conduct of the applicant's counsel during the proceedings.

The taxpayer appealed reassessments for the 2011 and 2012 taxation years that added unreported business income from an online auction and DVD business, and imposed gross negligence penalties.

The Minister used the deposit method to determine the taxpayer's income.

The taxpayer argued the amounts were unearned income or loans, and claimed additional advertising expenses.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, finding the taxpayer failed to demolish the Minister's assumptions or prove the additional expenses.

The Court upheld the gross negligence penalties, concluding the taxpayer's failure to keep adequate records and report significant income was a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable businessperson.