Robert Wilfred Walter Dowhan

The moving defendants, including a receiver manager and a bank, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff condominium corporation's claims for construction deficiencies, breach of warranty, oppression, and conspiracy, as well as various cross-claims.

Applying the 'full appreciation' test from Combined Air, the court found that the voluminous and conflicting evidentiary record precluded making dispositive findings on a summary judgment motion.

The motion was dismissed with respect to the plaintiff and the cross-claiming architect, and the action was directed to proceed to trial.

The applicants sought declarations and rectification of land title records concerning a nine-foot right of way benefiting their property.

The court held the easement created by express grant in 1964 had not been extinguished, rejecting abandonment arguments tied to non-use and later title-description errors during conversion to land titles.

The court found the responding party had actual notice through registered descriptions and referenced plans, and was not protected as an innocent purchaser without notice.

The application was allowed, with orders directing the Land Registrar to amend the parcel registers to reflect the subsisting right of way and costs awarded to the applicants.

The plaintiffs and a co-defendant brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that losses arising from the collapse of a basement wall were covered under a title insurance policy.

The insurer argued the policy was void due to a material misrepresentation in the insurance application concerning the nature of the dwelling, which was described as a single-family residence despite being used as a multi-unit property.

The court held that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, including whether the misrepresentation was material to the risk and whether the insurer would have issued the same policy had it known the true facts.

The applicants also argued that the insurer had effectively accepted coverage through prior correspondence, but the court found that the evidence surrounding the letter raised factual issues unsuitable for summary judgment.

The motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

After waiting the customary period and confirming that notice of the hearing was properly sent, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after suffering a massive heart attack.

Following his return to work, he experienced a temporary reduction in hours, was required to take full days off for medical appointments, and was assigned to a different truck.

His employment was ultimately terminated.

The Tribunal found that the reduction in hours was due to seasonal business fluctuations, the medical appointment policy was a reasonable operational requirement, and the truck assignment was unrelated to his health.

The Tribunal concluded that the termination was based on the applicant's repeated complaints and inappropriate comments to a customer, not his disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment.

A hearing was scheduled to address whether a full and final release signed by the applicant barred the application.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing without explanation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's refusal to grant relief from forfeiture regarding a lease.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of equitable and discretionary power, concluding the order was not unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant insurer appealed an order granting partial summary judgment which declared that the respondent's action for disability benefits was commenced within the limitation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge erred in holding that a clear and unequivocal denial was necessary to trigger the limitation period.

Because discoverability issues were raised, there was a genuine issue for trial, and the matter should not have been determined on a motion for summary judgment.