R. Mitchell Rowe

The applicant, a former president and Life member of the Customs and Immigration Union (CIU), challenged the revocation of his Life membership, claiming it breached the CIU By-laws and seeking reinstatement.

The Court found that Life membership was an honorary status, not contractual, and that its revocation was not justiciable.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the relationship did not create enforceable legal rights.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding him incapable of consenting to treatment and confirming a Community Treatment Order (CTO).

The appellant argued that the 28-day delay between the signing of the Community Treatment Plan and the issuance of the CTO breached the Mental Health Act.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's finding that the renewal was made in conformity with the Act, concluding there was no undue delay given the administrative processes involved.

The appellant appealed the cumulative sentence of almost 18 months imposed for criminal harassment and two counts of breaching court orders, arguing it was harsh, excessive, and an error in principle.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's sentence.

The court found the trial judge properly applied sentencing principles, considered aggravating factors such as domestic violence, pre-planning, and lack of remorse, and was entitled to deference in her assessment of the appellant's rehabilitation potential and the fitness of the consecutive sentences.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after her employment contract was not renewed.

The application was filed approximately two months after the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code had expired.

The applicant argued that the delay was incurred in good faith due to her pursuit of an internal complaints process and medical difficulties.

The Tribunal found that waiting for an internal process does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay, and the medical evidence provided did not establish that her condition prevented her from filing on time.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The appellant, a former probationary employee of the National Research Council, brought a defamation action against his former employer and colleagues regarding statements made in a 'Release on Probation' document.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding it was barred by the grievance scheme under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, lacked evidence of defamation, and was protected by qualified privilege.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusions.

Following a bifurcated civil trial in which the defendants were found not liable for historic abuse allegations and the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, the court considered the defendants’ request for costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of $145,000 arising from complex litigation involving extensive documentary disclosure and numerous expert reports.

The court reviewed the purposes of costs awards and the relevant factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, including the defendants’ settlement offers and the litigation’s complexity.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and fairness, the court declined to award the full amount requested but fixed costs in a substantial sum reflecting the defendants’ success and the burden of defending the allegations.

The plaintiff sued her parents alleging repeated physical and emotional abuse during her childhood, including blows to the head, emotional mistreatment, and a failure by the mother to protect her.

The trial was bifurcated under Rule 6.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine liability only.

The plaintiff relied primarily on her own testimony, limited third‑party affidavit evidence recounting statements she made in the past, and expert opinions interpreting her medical history and alleged trauma.

The defendants denied the allegations and presented evidence from themselves, their son, and police investigations indicating no corroboration of abuse.

The court found the defendants’ evidence more compelling and concluded that the plaintiff had not proven the alleged assaults, emotional harm, or breaches of fiduciary or protective duties on a balance of probabilities.

The appellant appealed an order reopening an agreement and referring his accounts to assessment under the Solicitors Act.

The appellant argued that the services rendered were management consulting rather than legal services, and relied on a document he claimed created an express trust.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trust document lacked certainty of intention and subject matter, and noting the appellant's own written explanations referred to the provision of legal services.

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision dismissing his claim for income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the Arbitrator erred in assessing the evidence, admitting surveillance videotapes that post-dated the claim period, and finding that the insured bears the onus of proving ongoing entitlement to benefits after an insurer terminates them.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, holding that the Arbitrator's credibility findings and reliance on the insurer's medical experts were amply supported by the evidence.

The Delegate further held that the surveillance evidence was properly admitted to assess credibility and that the ultimate burden of proving entitlement to benefits remains on the insured person.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, medical benefits, and visiting expenses for his parents.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant was not substantially disabled.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility, noting numerous inconsistencies in his medical history, functional abilities, and income reporting, which were further undermined by surveillance evidence showing him working and moving without apparent difficulty.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant did not suffer significant physical or psychological injuries as a result of the accident and dismissed all claims.

Following an arbitration decision that denied the applicant's claims for statutory accident benefits due to pervasive credibility issues, the parties sought their respective expenses of the proceeding.

The arbitrator found no basis to order the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses.

However, balancing the applicant's lack of credibility against the complexity of the case and the principle of facilitating access to the dispute resolution system, the arbitrator awarded the applicant one-third of his arbitration expenses.