Robert Stuart Whitmore

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and sexual harassment against her employer.

After retaining counsel, she brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add a lead hand and a co-worker as individual respondents.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal granted the request to add the lead hand, noting specific allegations against him, minimal prejudice, and the potential need for a specific remedial order.

The request to add the co-worker was deferred because the request had not been properly delivered to him.

Maryann Kutlesa initiated an action under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act to set aside the transfer of a 50% interest in a cottage lot from her ex-husband Jozo Kutlesa's company (1349241 Ontario Inc.) to his uncle, John Kotsiou.

She also sought a constructive trust over the interest.

John Kotsiou counterclaimed against Maryann for post-transfer expenses and cross-claimed against Jozo Kutlesa for indemnification.

The court found that Jozo Kutlesa's intent in making the conveyance was fraudulent, but John Kotsiou was protected under section 3 of the Act due to good faith and lack of notice.

Consequently, Maryann's claims were dismissed.

John's counterclaim against Maryann for past operational costs and mortgage payments was dismissed due to his exclusive possession of the property and Jozo's partial contribution.

John's cross-claim against Jozo for outstanding mortgage indemnification was granted.

The moving defendants sought dismissal of the plaintiffs’ action for delay under Rule 24.01(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court examined whether the delay was inordinate and inexcusable and whether it created a substantial risk that a fair trial was no longer possible.

The action had been commenced in 1987 and had not been set down for trial for more than 25 years, with long periods of inactivity attributable to the plaintiffs.

The court held the explanations offered, including related insolvency proceedings, settlement discussions, and financial constraints, were insufficient.

Presumed prejudice was not rebutted and actual prejudice was established due to unavailable key witnesses.

The action was dismissed for delay.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a leaky basement in a home they sold to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of fraudulent misrepresentation concerning the history of leaks but found the trial judge erred in finding an implied representation regarding construction plans.

Consequently, the court reduced the damages award to exclude repair costs unrelated to the specific misrepresentation established, lowering the award by $22,157.58 to $48,040.62.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a paragraph of the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim alleging intentional infliction of mental suffering arising from a false accusation of theft in the employment context.

The defendant argued the pleading failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action under the elements established by the Court of Appeal for the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The court held that, at the pleadings stage, the alleged factual matrix—including a false accusation of criminal conduct against a long‑term employee—could potentially satisfy the requirement of flagrant or outrageous conduct calculated to cause harm resulting in a visible and provable illness.

Accepting the pleaded facts as true, the court found it was not plain and obvious the claim would fail.

The motion to strike was therefore dismissed.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the motion judge dismissing her motion to set aside a Registrar's order.

The Registrar had dismissed her appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order for failure to perfect.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant raised no question of law, provided no explanation for the delay in perfecting the appeal, and demonstrated no grounds to vary or set aside the motion judge's order.