3 total
University's appeal allowed; student's claim for tuition refund and punitive damages dismissed due to clear policy.
The University of Toronto appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding a student $710.27 in general damages and $1,000 in punitive damages over a disputed tuition refund.
The student had dropped a full-year course after the refund deadline but argued the policy was ambiguous.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in fact and law.
The court held the university's calendar and refund policy clearly stated the financial penalties for late withdrawal, and the university's conduct did not meet the high threshold for punitive damages.
The original claim was dismissed.
The court dismissed a motion to stay an action for unpaid fees, finding it fell within a contractual exception to the arbitration clause.
The corporate defendants, BevCanna Operating Corp. and BevCanna Enterprises Inc., brought a motion seeking a permanent stay of the action or claims, arguing they were subject to an arbitration clause in their agreement with the plaintiff, Eurofins Experchem Laboratories, Inc. Eurofins contended that the agreement contained an exception for actions concerning unpaid fees and that the arbitration clause might not apply due to incorrect naming.
The court, applying the "pith and substance" test, found that the action, despite including claims like breach of trust and unjust enrichment, was fundamentally for the collection of unpaid fees, which was explicitly permitted by an exception in the agreement.
The motion to stay was dismissed, allowing the action to proceed in court.
Injunction Motion dismissed
The plaintiff, Sabrina Homes Inc. (Buyer), brought a motion for leave to register Certificates of Pending Litigation (CPL) and an interlocutory injunction against properties owned by the defendants (Seller).
The court dismissed the motion, finding it constituted an abuse of process as it sought to relitigate issues previously determined by Justice Ramsay.
Alternatively, the court found the Buyer failed to satisfy the test for a CPL, specifically regarding the uniqueness of the property and the adequacy of damages as a remedy.
The balance of harm favored the Seller, who faced potential breach of contract and foreclosure if the CPL was granted.
Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the Seller.
