23 total
Appeal from Master's order denying leave to amend statement of claim dismissed as proposed claim was statute-barred.
The appellants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to amend their statement of claim to add a claim for knowing assistance against the respondent law firm and lawyer.
The Master had found the proposed claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the material facts were discoverable more than two years prior to the motion.
The Divisional Court upheld the Master's decision, finding no error of law in the application of the test for knowing assistance and no palpable and overriding error in the Master's factual findings regarding discoverability.
Small Claims Court appeal dismissed; trial judge reasonably found home inspector not liable for concealed rot.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his negligence and breach of contract claim against a home inspector.
The appellant alleged the inspector failed to identify wood rot during a pre-purchase visual inspection of a cottage.
The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the appellant failed to prove the standard of care or a breach thereof, noting the absence of expert evidence.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly the inspector's testimony that the rot was concealed and not observable during the initial visual inspection.
Mareva injunction upheld despite minor disclosure imperfections.
The moving defendant sought to set aside a previously granted Mareva injunction obtained without notice, alleging inadequate evidence, hearsay, and failure by the plaintiffs to make full and frank disclosure.
The court examined alleged deficiencies including the presentation of SMS message data, inaccuracies in affidavit evidence, and hearsay regarding customer orders.
While the court acknowledged certain imperfections and minor inaccuracies in the evidence, it concluded that the original motion judge had sufficient admissible evidence to justify the injunction.
The court held that minor imperfections or omissions in ex parte proceedings do not automatically invalidate relief where the overall evidentiary foundation remains adequate.
The Mareva order was therefore maintained, subject to a minor agreed amendment.