Patrick Bernard

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed her claim for breach of contract regarding a roof replacement and granted the respondents' cross-claim for defamation based on negative online reviews.

On appeal, the appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness, alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias, and raised several errors regarding contract interpretation and defamation defences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no evidence of bias, and no palpable and overriding errors in the deputy judge's findings of fact or application of the law.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court decision that applied the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act to a claim for residential rental arrears.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the six-year limitation period under section 17 of the Real Property Limitations Act applies to claims for rent between a landlord and tenant.

The court increased the judgment for rental arrears from $8,400 to the full claimed amount of $21,600 and awarded costs to the appellant.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claims for wrongful dismissal and defamation against her former employer.

The trial judge found that the employer's statement that an invoice was 'fraudulently produced' was defamatory but substantially true, and thus justified.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in defining 'fraudulent' and in finding that the recipient of the invoice was not a client.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's contextual analysis of the defence of justification or his factual findings.

The plaintiff Receiver sued the defendant purchaser for damages after the purchaser failed to close a $12.2 million agreement of purchase and sale for a luxury residential property.

The purchaser argued he was entitled to terminate the agreement and receive his deposit back because the property suffered substantial water and mould damage prior to closing, and that the Receiver anticipatorily breached the agreement by refusing to extend the closing date.

The court found that the damage was not substantial, the Receiver did not repudiate the agreement, and the purchaser breached the contract by failing to close.

The Receiver was awarded over $5.3 million in damages, including the deficiency in the resale price, auction fees, and holding costs.

The claimant and the bankrupt appealed two decisions of the Registrar in Bankruptcy that refused to extend the time for the claimant to appeal the Trustee's Notice of Disallowance of her claim to a beneficial interest in a property, and subsequently granted the Trustee's motion to sell the property.

The Superior Court found that the bankrupt had standing to appeal.

The Court held that the Registrar made palpable and overriding errors of fact in applying the test for an extension of time, specifically by ignoring evidence that the claimant formed an intention to appeal within the prescribed time and had a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The appeals were allowed, the Registrar's decisions were set aside, and the time to appeal the disallowance was extended.