Paul Hosack

The plaintiff employee was injured while engaging in horseplay on the defendant employer's premises.

The WSIB ruled he was not in the course of employment, precluding WSIA benefits but allowing a civil action.

At the opening of trial, the defendant brought a motion to restrict the plaintiff's claim to occupier's liability, arguing the WSIB ruling precluded claims based on the employment relationship.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the WSIB ruling did not negate the plaintiff's common-law right to claim damages for negligence against the defendant as his employer.

The appellant appealed a 40-day liquor licence suspension imposed by the Licence Appeal Tribunal for selling alcohol to intoxicated patrons and permitting drunkenness, following two separate incidents where patrons left the establishment and were later found suffering from hypothermia (one fatally).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law in the Tribunal's assessment of evidence, no procedural unfairness from an incomplete recording of the hearing, and no error in principle regarding the sanction imposed.

The plaintiff, Keen Landscaping Inc., sued the self-represented defendant, Ann Marie Stewart, under the Construction Lien Act for unpaid work related to the installation of a fiberglass pool and associated landscaping.

The defendant disputed the corporate entity, contract terms, and quality of work.

The court found that the defendant knew she was contracting with a corporate entity and that a contract existed, evolving through various proposals.

The total contract price was determined to be $87,014.52, with an outstanding balance of $46,580.97.

The court found the plaintiff substantially completed the project, but noted two deficiencies: oozing glue from patio stones and non-compliant patio steps, requiring a further hearing to determine rectification costs.

The plaintiff, Keen Landscaping Inc., sued the defendant, Ann Marie Stewart, for unpaid pool installation costs.

The court previously ruled in favour of the plaintiff but identified two deficiencies requiring rectification: non-compliant patio steps and oozing glue from patio stones.

This ruling determined the costs of these rectifications.

The court found that the property's grading was altered by the pool installation, requiring a grading certification that the plaintiff failed to obtain.

The defendant's proposed rectification plan, including a complete rebuild of the patio steps and a grading certification, was largely accepted, with an adjusted cost of $21,413.50 (including HST).

This amount was credited to the defendant, reducing the balance owing to the plaintiff from $43,580.97 to $22,167.47.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been dealt with by the WSIB's closure of the applicant's work transition plan and an Employment Standards Officer's decision regarding termination and severance pay.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB's administrative closure was not a 'proceeding' and did not address the discrimination allegations, and that the ESA decision dealt only with statutory pay entitlements, not the human rights claims.

The plaintiff, a 68-year-old captive sales agent, brought an action for constructive dismissal after his employer proposed changes to his commission structure and requested he sign an updated employment agreement.

The plaintiff resigned, claiming a toxic work environment and a fundamental change to his employment terms, despite the employer offering 18 months of working notice on his existing terms.

The court dismissed the action, finding no constructive dismissal as the employer's conduct did not amount to a repudiation of the contract.

Furthermore, the court held that even if constructive dismissal had occurred, the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by refusing the reasonable opportunity to work out the notice period.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the moving defendants sought an order compelling the plaintiff to attend four independent medical examinations, including assessments by an occupational therapist, psychiatrist, neuropsychologist, and diabetes specialist.

The court considered the principles governing additional medical examinations under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 33.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing trial fairness and the defendants’ entitlement to respond to expert evidence served by the plaintiff.

The court held that psychiatric, neuropsychological, and occupational therapy assessments were justified to allow the defendants to fairly respond to the plaintiff’s psychological injury and future care cost claims.

However, the request for an examination by a diabetes specialist was denied due to insufficient evidence establishing the need for an in‑person assessment.

Conditions were imposed regarding scheduling, transportation, and accommodations to reduce the burden on the plaintiff.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for four issues in their new home: noisy vents, a leaking basement patio door, water ponding on the lakeside patio, and cupping of the hardwood floor.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims regarding the vents and the water ponding, finding that the vents met Building Code requirements and the ponding was caused by subsidence, which is excluded from warranty.

However, the Tribunal allowed the claims for the basement patio door and the hardwood floor cupping.

The Tribunal found that the basement door leaked and should be replaced, similar to the upper patio door.

Regarding the hardwood floor, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicants' experts, finding that the cupping was caused by excessive moisture resulting from defective work and an inadequate HVAC system, rather than improper maintenance or an 'unattended house syndrome.' The Tribunal ordered Tarion to pay $17,069.78 for the patio door and $50,846.44 for the replacement of the hardwood floor.

The appellant, a tobacco producer facing unresolved criminal charges for alleged unlawful sale of tobacco, appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board denying his request for an exemption from the General Regulation 1999-2000.

The appellant sought an extension of the deadline to apply for spring rental of his marketing quota and an exemption to rent out 100% of his quota rather than the standard 30% limit.

The Tribunal found that the Board acted unfairly by treating the appellant differently from other producers facing similar charges who were allowed to continue producing.

The Tribunal granted the extension for the 30% spring rental but denied the request to rent out 100% of the quota, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify the latter exemption.