Peter A. Daley

The applicant, a former registered practical nurse, sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denying her benefits for interstitial lung disease.

She claimed the illness was caused by workplace exposure to viruses.

The Tribunal, relying on an independent medical assessor, found it probable that the disease was idiopathic and only speculative that it was caused by workplace viruses.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's reliance on the medical assessor was reasonable and did not constitute an abdication of its decision-making power.

The applicant moved for leave to appeal an interim spousal support order and for a stay of the award.

The applicant argued the motion judge erred by refusing an adjournment, considering late-filed materials, and awarding retrospective support.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general importance.

The landlords moved to quash the tenants' appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order, arguing the tenants failed to comply with a previous court order requiring them to pay ongoing rent.

The court noted that the landlords' affidavit was inaccurate as it failed to disclose a partial rent payment made by one of the tenants.

Although the tenants did not file responding affidavit evidence, they expressed an intention to pay the arrears.

The court exercised its discretion to deny the motion to quash, instead granting the tenants a short extension to pay the outstanding rent, failing which the landlords could move without notice to quash the appeal and enforce the eviction.

The appellants (tenants) appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay unpaid rent and utility costs to the respondent (landlord).

The appellants argued that an oral agreement existed wherein utilities were included in the rent, and that the trial judge erred in applying the parol evidence rule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the written lease clearly and unambiguously required the tenants to pay for propane and electrical charges, and that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error.

The appellants, G&S Transport and Olympic Wholesale Ltd., appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them liable for unpaid lease payments on a transport trailer leased by the respondent.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, finding no privity of contract between G&S and the respondent, and no evidentiary basis to pierce the corporate veil or apply the alter ego principle to hold Olympic liable for the lease entered into by a related company.

The judgments against both appellants were set aside.