William Patrick Dermody

The appellant, a teacher at a private school, appealed the dismissal of her constructive dismissal claim by way of summary judgment.

She alleged that the respondent school altered the terms of her employment by failing to protect her from a confrontation with a student's parents over a mark, undermining her authority by having another teacher read and mark assignments, and assigning passing grades to students who had not completed all assignments.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment dismissal, finding no evidence that the school altered the terms of employment or breached any policy, and that the school's response to the appellant's complaints was measured and reasonable.

Kimberly DeBon, a teacher, sued Hillfield Strathallan College (HSC) for constructive dismissal, alleging a poisoned work environment due to marking disputes, lack of accommodation, and property tampering.

HSC moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court applied the two-part test for constructive dismissal from Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services and the objective test for a poisoned workplace from Shah v. Xerox Canada Ltd. The court found no evidence that HSC's conduct amounted to a substantial breach of the employment contract or created a poisoned work environment.

The individual grounds for constructive dismissal were not established, nor was a causal link between earlier events and the resignation.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses two applications concerning the estate of Frank Ernest Warren: one by the estate trustees to pass their accounts, and a cross-application by beneficiary Cheryl Bolton alleging breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duties, and seeking the removal of the trustees and reimbursement for improperly converted monies and excessive legal fees.

The estate, valued at approximately $316,000, included a "Henson-like" trust for Ms. Bolton, who receives ODSP.

The court found that the trustees, who resided in Scotland, unduly burdened the estate.

The court disallowed the trustees' compensation, significantly reduced the legal fees charged by their counsel (finding 70% of clerk time was for trustee work and disallowing certain legal research), and ordered the removal of the estate trustees.

Reimbursement for the trustees' flights, hotel, and meal expenses was approved.

The court was particularly troubled by the trustees' proposal to collapse the Henson trust, which would have been detrimental to the beneficiary and contrary to the testator's wishes.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for $2.6 million in building replacement costs and $250,000 in business interruption losses after two windstorms damaged their mushroom farm buildings.

The defendant insurer argued that some damage pre-existed the storms and was excluded from coverage, relying on conflicting expert reports.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that the conflicting expert evidence regarding the cause and extent of the damage created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court also held that the statutory appraisal process was not appropriate for resolving disputes involving policy interpretation and causation.

The appellants appealed a decision finding they were not entitled to register a Notice under s. 71 of the Land Titles Act.

The appellants argued that their potential right to become a 50% shareholder in a corporation that owns land, and thereby share in profits from the sale of that land, constituted a registrable interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that such a potential financial interest is too remote to qualify as an unregistered estate, right, interest, or equity in land under s. 71.

The applicants were successful at trial in having a notice filed under section 71 of the Land Titles Act removed from title to certain real property.

The applicants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the respondents acted unreasonably by registering and refusing to remove the notice.

The court found the respondents did not act unreasonably, but merely took an incorrect position, and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The court fixed the applicants' costs at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, considering the importance of the matter, the lack of jurisprudence on section 71, and the comparative costs outlines.

The defendant insurer sought leave to appeal a motion judge's dismissal of its motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action involved the interpretation of family protection coverage under an Ontario policy where the at-fault driver was insured under a New Brunswick policy.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusion that a trial was necessary to fully appreciate the evidence and issues, particularly regarding the New Brunswick insurance policy and settlement approaches.

The plaintiff and defendants brought competing motions for summary judgment in a dispute over the ownership of a share in a land-holding company and the redemption of a mortgage.

The plaintiff claimed it was the beneficial owner of the share and had validly tendered funds to redeem the mortgage.

The defendants argued the share was held to secure a 50% interest in future development, not just as security for the loan.

The court found that the conflicting evidence regarding the terms on which the share was held and the adequacy of the tender could not be resolved on a summary basis.

Both motions were dismissed, and the matter was directed to trial with specific issues defined.

The appellant, a third mortgagee, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action for damages for an alleged improvident sale and for an accounting under s. 27 of the Mortgages Act.

The appellant argued the motion judge applied the wrong test, the sale was improvident, and the second mortgagee was not entitled to add the first mortgage payout to its claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the wrong test was applied, the respondent took reasonable precautions to obtain the true market value of the property.

The court also held the respondent was entitled to the payout amount under the doctrine of equitable subrogation.

The applicants sought an order directing the Director of Land Titles to remove certain registrations, including a notice of an unregistered estate, right, interest or equity registered under s. 71 of the Land Titles Act.

The dispute arose from a 2006 agreement involving the transfer of commercial property and contemplated future commercial arrangements between related corporate entities.

The respondent consented to the removal of a registered notice of option.

However, uncertainty remained regarding whether the respondent or related entities possessed a registerable interest in the lands.

The court ordered the removal of the notice of option and directed that a trial of issues be held to determine whether any registerable interest existed under the agreement at the relevant times.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order dismissing their motion to add four defendants to an action claiming damages from improper foreclosure orders.

The motion judge found the claims against the proposed defendants were statute-barred under the two-year limitation period, as the appellants knew or ought to have known of their involvement well before the limitation period expired.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, rejecting arguments that a ten-year limitation period applied or that the doctrine of special circumstances permitted adding the parties.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant lender brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim by a third mortgagee arising from a power of sale of residential property.

The plaintiff alleged the sale was improvident and challenged the defendant’s ability to add amounts paid to discharge a prior mortgage to its own mortgage debt.

The court held the sale price fell within the range of professional appraisals and did not demonstrate bad faith or fraud.

The court further held that the defendant was contractually and equitably entitled to add the payout of the prior mortgage to its own mortgage and recover that amount in priority to the plaintiff.

Finding the matter suitable for determination on a documentary record, the court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action.

The appellants were successful on appeal, significantly increasing their recovery from the trial judgment.

The respondent sought costs based on a pre-litigation offer that exceeded the appeal award but was only open for five days.

The court noted the respondent made no Rule 49 offer, while the appellants made three, though for amounts greater than their ultimate recovery.

Given the recovery and the necessity of the appeal, the court awarded the appellants $15,000 inclusive of costs.

The plaintiffs appealed a trial judgment regarding a contract for the construction of a home that was destroyed by fire before completion.

The trial judge found the plaintiffs had terminated the contract and awarded the defendant $100,000 on its counterclaim for lost profits, while awarding the plaintiffs a small net judgment from insurance proceeds.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding that the plaintiffs terminated the contract but found the trial judge erred in calculating the insurance trust funds and the counterclaim damages.

The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the counterclaim to $20,000 and varying the net judgment in favour of the plaintiffs to $60,765.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision extending the timeline for the Commission and Complainants to provide notice to relevant school boards and bargaining agents.

The Tribunal acknowledged the logistical challenges and privacy concerns raised by counsel regarding the original 72-hour deadline set in a previous order.

The new deadline for dispatching notices and appropriate disclosure was set to October 28, 2005, with subsequent deadlines established for written submissions from the school boards and bargaining agents.

The Tribunal considered whether to add school boards and bargaining agents as parties to human rights complaints alleging failure to accommodate autistic children in schools.

The Tribunal directed the Commission and Complainants' counsel to give notice to the school boards and bargaining agents forthwith, and requested written submissions from those entities on whether and to what extent they should participate in the proceedings.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario convened a pre-hearing conference to address procedural matters in multiple combined complaints regarding autism services.

The Tribunal confirmed changes in representation, combined newly referred complaints with the existing groups, and established a schedule for the production of disclosure.

The Tribunal also reserved dates for the hearing on the merits and a constitutional question, while encouraging the parties to continue cooperating in the disclosure process.

The appellants appealed an order of the motions judge.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the decision arrived at by the motions judge.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,500 plus GST.

The Ontario Racing Commission heard applications from Fort Erie Racetrack for teletheatre licences at Buffy's Tavern and the Rex Hotel, locations previously licensed to Flamboro Downs.

Flamboro opposed the applications, arguing its contracts with the locations were still subsisting.

The Commission found that the previous licences had expired and that granting the applications to Fort Erie would separate the Hamilton and Niagara areas for teletheatre purposes, which was in the public interest.

The applications were granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to weekly income benefits and rehabilitation expenses.

The insurer terminated benefits and sought repayment, alleging the applicant was not employed at the time of the accident and misrepresented his condition.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility, having concealed a pre-existing work-related knee injury and a prior severe head injury from both the insurer and medical assessors.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant was not employed at the time of the accident and did not suffer an ongoing disability caused by the accident.

The applicant's claims were dismissed, and the insurer was granted repayment of the weekly income benefits paid, as they were induced by the applicant's culpable error and failed to account for deductible workers' compensation benefits.