Robert Seumas Mackenzie Woods

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding a construction dispute, arguing the trial judge erred in calculating delays caused by the lack of a building permit and wiring changes, as well as compensation for office overhead and interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions were amply supported by the record and expert evidence.

Teck Cominco Limited applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for an order to cease trade any securities issued under Inco Limited's shareholder rights plan.

The parties consented to an order lifting the rights plan against the Teck bid effective August 16, 2006.

The Commission determined it was in the public interest to lift the rights plan not only against the Teck bid, but against all potential bidders, to ensure an unrestricted auction and allow shareholders to evaluate all offers.

The respondent municipality brought a motion to quash the appellant's second appeal as an abuse of process.

The appellant brought a responding motion to set aside the Registrar's order dismissing its first appeal for delay.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash the second appeal, finding it was an abuse of process because the first appeal on the merits had already been dismissed for delay.

However, the Court exercised its discretion to set aside the Registrar's order dismissing the first appeal, accepting the delay in settling the formal judgment as an adequate explanation, subject to strict conditions regarding representation, filing an amended notice of appeal, and ordering transcripts.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee six months' salary as reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal, as well as solicitor and client costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the notice period, finding that while six months was high, it did not justify interference.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, holding that based on the recent decision in Rooney v. Graham, the costs should have been awarded on a party and party scale.