R. D. Reilly

A tenant brought an action against a housing co‑operative alleging negligence arising from long‑standing maintenance deficiencies, including mould contamination, and the removal and loss of her personal property during remediation work.

The court found that the co‑operative failed to maintain the unit in a habitable condition and failed to complete remediation and restoration within a reasonable time.

The court further found that the co‑operative improperly required the tenant to remove the contents of the unit and failed to safeguard and return the property after it was removed.

Claims for general, aggravated, and punitive damages were rejected for lack of evidence.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the loss of personal property and reimbursement of certain payments.

Following dismissal of a family law application, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Although the respondent was wholly successful, the court found the application raised a unique issue for which counsel could not identify directly applicable jurisprudence.

The court concluded that the proceeding was not frivolous or unreasonable despite the applicant’s lack of success.

As a result, the successful respondent was awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale rather than a higher scale.

Costs were fixed in a lump sum inclusive of disbursements and taxes and ordered payable forthwith.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of her civil action for delay under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The dismissal resulted after counsel failed to diarize a status notice deadline, leading to the action being dismissed by the registrar.

The court applied the contextual analysis articulated in Reid v. Dow Corning Corp. and Scaini v. Prochnicki, considering the explanation for delay, inadvertence in missing deadlines, promptness of the motion to set aside, and prejudice to the defendant.

Although counsel’s conduct bordered on negligence, the court found the plaintiff had always intended to pursue the litigation and that the motion was brought promptly once the dismissal was discovered.

Finding no significant prejudice to the defendant, the court set aside the administrative dismissal and allowed the action to proceed.

The applicant sought a declaration dividing the respondent’s Canadian Forces pension under the federal Pension Benefits Division Act and requiring execution of documents to implement the division.

The court held that the federal legislation does not create an independent entitlement to pension division but merely provides a mechanism for implementing equalization of pension assets.

Entitlement to share in the pension must first arise through provincial family property legislation.

Because the claim was effectively an equalization claim brought more than six years after separation, it was barred by the limitation period under s.7(3) of the Family Law Act.

The application was therefore dismissed.