Sarah E. Pepall

The appellants appealed an order under the Business Corporations Act setting the fair market value of shares in a corporation and directing a buyout.

The appellants argued the application judge erred in valuing a specific property at $400,000 without providing adequate reasons for selecting that figure among competing appraisals.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that meaningful appellate review was impossible due to the lack of explanation.

Furthermore, the application judge committed a palpable and overriding error by inserting the lower property value into a valuation model without adjusting the corresponding tax consequences.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new determination of the property's value.

The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing his claim for $25,000 on a promissory note and awarding the respondent $10,030 on a counterclaim for construction defects.

The trial judge found the promissory note lacked consideration and was obtained by misrepresentation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or assessment of damages.

The appellant massage therapist appealed a decision of the Discipline Panel finding him guilty of professional misconduct for authorizing an employee to issue false receipts.

He argued the panel erred by convicting him on a different theory of liability than advanced by the prosecutor and erred in its factual findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the appellant knew the case he had to meet, and holding that the panel's credibility findings and ultimate conclusion were reasonable.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the cross appeal.

Because the appeal and cross appeal were intertwined, the court adjourned both matters without a fixed date so they could be heard together following a motion under section 6(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Enforcement of the payment order was stayed pending further order.

The appellant father appealed a child support order, arguing the trial judge erred in finding his step-daughter was a child of the marriage, in determining his income to be $40,000, and in ordering the full table amount for his biological daughter despite a joint custody order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or significant misapprehension of the evidence.

The trial judge properly applied the Chartier test for the step-child, made credibility findings regarding the appellant's income, and correctly noted the appellant's parenting time did not meet the 40 percent threshold under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The applicant, a nursing student on academic probation, sought judicial review of a decision by the Dean of Nursing suspending her from a clinical placement, which effectively required her withdrawal from the program.

She alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias, failure to apply the professional suitability policy, and procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, substantial compliance with the policy, and that the subsequent appeal hearing was a hearing de novo that cured any alleged procedural defects.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent school board to temporarily remove their two children from their school.

The board made the decision after the father received threatening emails from someone with access to the school's computers, which also threatened the children.

The Divisional Court found that the board's decision was reasonable given the safety concerns and the ongoing police investigation, and dismissed the application for judicial review and injunctive relief.

The respondent employee was laid off for a cumulative duration of 35 weeks within a 52-week period.

Upon reaching this statutory maximum under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the employee brought a claim for common law damages for wrongful dismissal.

The employer appealed the trial judge's award of damages, arguing that the ESA and common law operate independently and that a statutory termination does not constitute a common law dismissal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a statutory termination under s. 56(1) of the ESA is a termination for all purposes, displacing the common law and entitling the employee to claim common law wrongful dismissal damages.

The City of Guelph appealed a Superior Court decision that quashed a property standards repair order regarding a deteriorated backyard swimming pool and ordered the City to share repair costs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that a backyard swimming pool is not a 'dwelling' under the Municipal Act, meaning City officials did not require a warrant to enter the property.

The Court also held that the appeal judge lacked jurisdiction to order cost-sharing and erred in finding a reasonable apprehension of bias against the municipal official who issued the repair order.

The original repair order was restored.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on charges of criminal harassment and failing to comply with a recognizance.

On appeal, amicus curiae argued that the trial judge erred by failing to hold a fitness hearing, asserting that the appellant's delusional disorder (erotomania) rendered him unfit to stand trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had properly relied on psychiatric reports confirming the appellant's fitness and that the limited cognitive capacity test was met.

An application to admit fresh psychiatric evidence was also dismissed.

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment order granting Crown wardship without access of his child to the Children's Aid Society.

The motion judge found no genuine issue for trial given the father's failure to address risks and lack of insight into his parenting deficiencies.

The appeal judge dismissed the appeal, and the father appealed to the Court of Appeal, tendering fresh evidence of his progress as a parent with a new child.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, holding that the child's best interests required finality and a permanent adoptive home.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision granting a partial award for storage and demurrage charges in an arbitrary amount and directing the balance to trial.

Both parties agreed the motion judge erred in this regard.

The appellant sought to have the entire matter sent to trial, while the respondent cross-appealed for summary judgment for the full amount claimed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the cross-appeal, finding that the appellant failed to put its best foot forward on the summary judgment motion to dispute the quantum or the invoices once the respondent's entitlement to a lien was established.

The respondent was granted judgment for the full amount claimed.