Ralph F.D. Swaine

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicant sought to add the owner of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent, and the franchisor-like entity (Best Western International Inc.) as a corporate respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the personal respondent due to questions about the corporate respondent's continued existence and ability to pay compensation.

The Tribunal denied the request to add Best Western International Inc., finding no basis for direct or vicarious liability given the independent contractor relationship and lack of control over employment matters.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB claim.

The defendants moved to vacate a Certificate of Pending Litigation obtained ex parte against a Mississauga property.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure by omitting information suggesting he knew the overseas land transaction involved a leasehold interest with a much lower purchase price.

Nevertheless, the court concluded the plaintiff had a sufficient interest arising from funds advanced to the defendant and concerns about the timing and consideration of the property transfer to family members.

The CPL was vacated due to the disclosure failure, but the court exercised its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act to require substantial security to protect the plaintiff’s potential claim.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment.

Although the appellants had an arguable defence on the merits, the motion judge found their explanation for the default unsatisfactory, as they had deliberately ignored the statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent bank for $32,796.01.

The appellant argued that her cross-motion to dismiss the bank's motion should have been granted due to the bank's failure to attend cross-examinations on its amended affidavit of documents.

The appellant conceded that summary judgment was properly granted based on the documentation eventually provided.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to set aside the judgment.

The court noted the bank's dilatory production but observed that the motion judge had already accounted for this by limiting prejudgment interest and denying the bank costs at first instance.