3 total
The court awarded $8,800 in costs to the paternal aunt after applying contra proferentem to her ambiguous offer to settle.
The court awarded costs to the paternal aunt following the dismissal of the father's motion to set aside a final custody order dated April 24, 2012.
The father's motion, filed in January 2013, sought to set aside the order and obtain temporary access to his child.
The paternal aunt filed a cross-motion for a restraining order.
The case proceeded through multiple court appearances and case conferences over approximately 20 months.
The paternal aunt made an Offer to Settle on January 20, 2014, offering to settle the motion if the father withdrew it and paid $2,500 in costs.
The father rejected the offer and proceeded to hearing, where his motion was dismissed.
The court found the offer was more favourable to the father than the final result and applied the costs consequences under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.
The court awarded costs of $8,800 inclusive of disbursements and HST.
Union did not breach duty of fair representation by negotiating reduction of lead hand premium without specific notice.
The applicant, a lead hand, alleged that the trade union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by proposing the deletion of the lead hand premium during collective bargaining.
The applicant argued he was entitled to specific notice of the proposal because it detrimentally affected him.
The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union had objective justification for its proposal due to historical ambiguity regarding the lead hand's duties and friction within the bargaining unit.
The Board held that the union was not required to provide specific, individual notice to members adversely affected by bargaining proposals, provided it did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.
Applicant awarded ongoing weekly income benefits after establishing motor vehicle accident caused chronic pain syndrome.
The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them, arguing she was capable of returning to work.
The applicant claimed ongoing entitlement, asserting she suffered from chronic pain syndrome.
The arbitrator found the applicant's family physician to be highly persuasive and accepted that the motor vehicle accident significantly contributed to the development of her chronic pain syndrome, rendering her substantially disabled.
The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay weekly income benefits to the date of the hearing, along with interest and expenses.
