Wojtek Jaskiewicz

The court imposed sanctions following a prior finding of civil contempt against a corporate respondent that failed to comply with court orders requiring disclosure and return of leased equipment.

Despite multiple opportunities to purge the contempt, the corporation and its controlling officer continued to ignore the orders and failed to appear at the sanctions hearing.

Applying factors from appellate and prior Superior Court jurisprudence concerning proportionality, mitigating and aggravating circumstances, deterrence, and denunciation, the court concluded that significant sanctions were required.

The corporation was fined and its sole officer and director was sentenced to a custodial term, with a warrant of committal issued unless compliance occurred.

The incarceration order could be set aside or shortened if the contemnor complied with the earlier court orders.

The appellants, creditors of a bankrupt corporation, sought leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to commence a negligence action against the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding the proposed action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

On appeal, the appellants argued that subsequent appeals of a Registrar's decision regarding the trustee's misconduct tolled the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that all material facts were known to the appellants by June 23, 2008, and the subsequent appeals did not affect the limitation period.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim for common law severance damages for wrongful dismissal.

The central issue was whether the trial judge erred in limiting the appellant's entitlement to the minimum required by the Employment Standards Act based on a termination clause in his employment contract.

The Court of Appeal held that the clause was unambiguous, not void at law, and supported by consideration given the appellant's promotion and enhanced remuneration.

The appeal was dismissed.

The landlord appealed a decision awarding the tenant $7,648.80 for the replacement value of goods removed or trashed by the landlord.

The landlord argued that damages should be nominal or reduced by fifty percent for depreciation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law and holding that it was open to the trier of fact to award replacement values.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent tenant.