Rachel Pilc

The appellant appealed a series of arbitration awards concerning parenting issues for the parties' four-year-old child, E. The awards included E's registration on the Korean Family Registry, the requirement to hire a transfer facilitator for child exchanges, and the arbitrator's costs decision.

The court also addressed preliminary motions for fresh evidence.

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, with the court upholding the arbitrator's decisions, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors in principle.

The fresh evidence motions were largely dismissed, applying the Palmer test, due to issues of hearsay, reliability, and statutory prohibition.

The appellants appealed a Tarion Warranty Corporation decision denying their warranty claims for hardwood flooring and marble tile defects in their new condominium unit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the hardwood floor cupping was caused by high humidity during a period when the builder had control of the unoccupied unit, constituting a breach of the warranty of workmanlike construction.

The Tribunal awarded $9,500 for floor repairs.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the marble claims, finding that the foyer crack was likely excluded due to concrete movement or was a common element issue, and the bathroom marks were naturally occurring fissures rather than warranted defects.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to continue an interim Mareva injunction, a Norwich Order, and certificates of pending litigation against the defendants, alleging they were victims of a multi-million dollar mortgage fraud orchestrated by their former lawyer and acquaintances to pay off the ex-husband's gambling debts.

The defendants cross-moved to vacate the orders and enforce the plaintiffs' undertaking as to damages.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case of fraud, noting their evidence was implausible and that they failed to make full and fair disclosure when obtaining the ex parte orders.

The court vacated the injunctions and orders but dismissed the defendants' motion to enforce the undertaking as to damages, finding it premature as the underlying claims of professional negligence and fraud remained to be determined at trial.