William S. Chalmers

The Law Society of Ontario brought an application for a permanent injunction to restrain Elizabeth Dias from practicing law or providing legal services without a license.

Dias, who was unlicensed, had provided extensive legal assistance and representation to an individual, Don Fex, in multiple Superior and Divisional Court proceedings.

Dias argued she was merely assisting a friend, relying on the "friend or neighbour" exception under By-Law 4 of the Law Society Act.

The court found that Dias's actions constituted the unauthorized practice of law, as the services provided exceeded what a licensed paralegal could offer and were rendered in Superior Court, making the friend or neighbour exception inapplicable.

The court granted the permanent injunction, emphasizing the public interest in preventing unauthorized legal practice and noting the prejudice caused to Mr. Fex by Dias's actions.

The appellant, Anderson Tung, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which found him incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medications due to his inability to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of his decision.

The Board's finding was based on evidence of his delusions and denial of mental illness.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's decision under a reasonableness standard, finding sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the appellant lacked capacity to appreciate the consequences of his treatment decision.

The plaintiff, Rishi Drepaul, was terminated without cause from his employment as a Processing Improvements Coordinator.

He was provided 9 weeks' notice, which he argued was insufficient.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court determined the appropriate notice period, the total remuneration including benefits, and the deductibility of Employment Insurance (EI) benefits.

The court found Drepaul was wrongfully dismissed and entitled to 11 months' salary in lieu of notice, with benefits estimated at 10% of his salary, and confirmed that EI benefits are not deductible from wrongful dismissal damages.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action arising from a trip and fall over a black cable in a gym weight room.

The court found numerous conflicting factual issues regarding the location of employees, the visibility of the cable, and whether a liability waiver was brought to the plaintiff's attention.

Concluding that a fair and just determination could not be made on the documentary record, the court declined to use its expanded fact-finding powers and dismissed the motion, awarding costs to the plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiffs' action for negligent repair and misrepresentation regarding an aircraft, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and that Alberta was the more appropriate forum.

The plaintiffs also moved to add a related federal corporation operating in Ontario as a defendant, which was granted on consent.

Applying the Van Breda test, the court found that Ontario had jurisdiction based on the defendants carrying on business in Ontario, the tort being committed in Ontario, and contracts being made in Ontario.

The court further held that the defendants failed to establish that Alberta was a clearly more appropriate forum, as most witnesses and the aircraft were located in Ontario.

The motion to stay was dismissed.