Terence J. Billo

The appellant appealed a decision, which was dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion for leave to appeal the motions judge's order that there be no order as to costs on the appellant's unsuccessful motion under Rule 49.09.

The respondent argued that the costs consequences of an unsuccessful summary judgment motion under Rule 20.06 should apply.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, holding that Rule 20 costs consequences do not apply to Rule 49.09 motions.

Finding no reversible error in the motions judge's exercise of discretion, the court dismissed the respondent's motion for leave to appeal.

As success was divided, no costs were awarded for the appeal.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding that the respondent had complied with the Minutes of Settlement by paying a lump sum of $27,000.

The appellant argued the respondent had a continuing obligation to make bimonthly salary payments and that the contra proferentem rule should apply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the handwritten Minutes were clear on their face and contained no reference to continuing salary payments.

The court found no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that 23 employees were eligible for Supplemental Unemployment Benefit (SUB) Plan payments.

The arbitrator found that a 'temporary lay-off' under the SUB Plan was equivalent to the period employees retained recall rights under the collective agreement.

Applying the pragmatic and functional approach, the Divisional Court determined the standard of review was patent unreasonableness.

The Court held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and SUB Plan was not patently unreasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.