CITATION: Stephanie Ozorio v. Canadian Hearing Society, 2016 ONSC 5440 COURT FILE NO.: CV DATE: ONTARIO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
|
|
- Richard Green
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 CITATION: Stephanie Ozorio v. Canadian Hearing Society, 2016 ONSC 5440 COURT FILE NO.: CV DATE: ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: STEPHANIE OZORIO and Plaintiff/Moving Party CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY Defendant/Responding Party Daniel A. Lublin, for Stephanie Ozorio Kimberly D. Pepper, for the Canadian Hearing Society HEARD: July 5, ONSC 5440 (CanLII A. O MARRA J. [1] The plaintiff, Stephanie Ozorio has moved for summary judgment against the defendant, Canadian Hearing Society (CHS for wrongful dismissal. The parties agree that this is a matter appropriate for summary judgment. [2] The plaintiff, age 60, then the defendant s Regional Director of its Toronto Region, was dismissed without cause November 30, 2015 as part of a restructuring process due to significant operating deficits the CHS was experiencing. She had been employed by the defendant for 30 years and had held the position of Regional Director since [3] The defendant, CHS, is a not for profit corporation that provides services, products and information related to people of all ages who are culturally deaf, oral deaf, deafened and hard of hearing. It employs over 450 people throughout a network of 29 offices across Ontario and on its website reports itself to be largest agency of its kind in Canada. Background of the Plaintiff [4] The plaintiff began working for the defendant shortly after graduating from university in Her initial positions included Vocational Rehabilitation Counsellor and Intake Coordinator. From 1999 she held a number of managerial positions within the organization. In 2004 she was employed as the Regional Director, Toronto Region, the defendant s largest
2 Page: 2 region, overseeing the day to day operations of a number of diagnostic, counselling, resources and support services, as well as the audiology clinic in the Providence Hospital. Her duties included involvement in community relations, relations with a government funders, as well as providing long term program and services planning for the Toronto regional operations. In her position she had managed up to 65 staff, with a number of managers reporting to her. She was responsible for overseeing a budget of $8 million. She reported directly to the Chief Operating Officer of CHS who in turn reported to the President and CEO. [5] The plaintiff is divorced and the primary caregiver of her son, who has an illness requiring medications that were covered by the defendant s health plan. Further, the plaintiff cares for her elderly mother who also lives with her. Compensation at Time of Termination 2016 ONSC 5440 (CanLII [6] The plaintiff s annual compensation as the Regional Director at the date her employment was terminated was a base salary of $97, plus benefits and RRSP contributions in the amount of $4, annually, for a total compensation package of $102, Circumstances of Employment Termination [7] On November 18, 2015, the defendant s new President and CEO, Ms. Julia Dumanian, met with the plaintiff and without any warning according to the plaintiff presented her with a voluntary separation offer. The terms of the offer would have provided the plaintiff with $93,000, less than her annual salary, in exchange for a release. Ms. Dumanian left the offer with the plaintiff for her review and any independent advice. On or about November 25, 2015, the plaintiff declined the offer as in her view it was unfair and inadequate given her long tenure and senior role in the organization. [8] On November 30, 2015, the defendant sent the plaintiff a termination letter then offering 12 months pay (approximately $97,000 and limited contribution of benefits for 2 months. No offer was made to provide the plaintiff with a letter of reference or any out-placement counselling services to assist her with alternative employment. [9] In lieu of acceptance, the defendant chose to pay the plaintiff her regular salary from November 30, 2015 to July 27, 2016, the minimal 34 week period for statutory notice and severance pay compliance under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 S.O C. 41, in addition to benefit coverage for 8 weeks. [10] The plaintiff commenced her action for wrongful dismissal December 15, Reasonable Notice in the Circumstances [11] The position of the plaintiff is that the reasonable notice period in the particular circumstances of this case is one of 24 months, relying on cases set out in Appendix A.
3 Page: 3 [12] The defendant s position has changed considerably since its original offers. Initially, the offer was basically 12 months salary in lieu of notice however, in its written and oral submissions the defendant urged the court to find that the reasonable notice period in the circumstances of this case is one of 18 to 20 months, relying on cases set out in Appendix B - a tacit acknowledgment of the inadequacy of the original offers. [13] Reasonable notice must be decided in reference to the particular facts of each case having regard to the factors as set out in Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd. (1960, 24 D.L.R. (2 nd 140 (H.C. at p. 145: There can be no catalogue laid down as to what is reasonable notice in particular classes of cases. The reasonableness of notice must be decided with reference to each particular case, having regard to the character of employment, the length of service of the servant, the age of the servant and the availability of similar employment, having regard to the experience, training and qualifications of the servant ONSC 5440 (CanLII [14] The plaintiff in this matter, now 61 years of age, had worked for the defendant for 30 years. As noted in Drysdale v. Panasonic Canada Inc., 2015 ONSC 6878, para. 13: Generally, a longer notice period will be justified for older long term employees who may be in a competitive disadvantage securing new employment because of their age (McKinney v. University of Guelph, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229 at para. 92. [15] The plaintiff has been applying for a variety of manager and senior managerial positions both in the public and private sectors continuously since her dismissal without receiving an interview. Many of the positions available in the social services field require an advanced graduate degree, which the plaintiff does not possess. [16] The plaintiff does have administrative and managerial skills that would be transferrable to other sectors beyond the not for profit sector, however as observed by Lederman J. in Drysdale v. Panasonic Canada Inc. that the plaintiff having served one employer for such a lengthy period of time, a potential new employer may view that individual as rather set in his ways and not as adaptable to change. [17] Further, age is an impediment. In Hussain v. Suzuki Canada Ltd., [2011] O.J. No. 6355, L.B. Roberts J. observed that a plaintiff in his 60s would undoubtedly face extremely stiff competition with much younger applicants for the same kind of employment. Such a plaintiff would be significantly disadvantaged because of his age when competing with younger employees. Similarly, in Leeming v. IBM Canada Ltd., [2015] O.J. No. 1020, Perell J. noted that the plaintiff who was 60 years of age did not have particularly bright prospects for reemployment competing with younger, more recently trained and less likely expensive talent.
4 Page: 4 [18] I accept that the plaintiff is at a competitive disadvantage given her age in the broader job market and having virtually no work experience outside that of the defendant, a not for profit organization. [19] The defendant submits that the plaintiff s position is properly characterized as a mid to senior level managerial position - as such she is not entitled to a notice period of 24 months, which would be more appropriate with respect to an executive position. [20] However, I note that the qualifications in the position description provided by the defendant for the position she held requires 3-5 years managerial experience with 1-2 years at the senior management level. In my view, the plaintiff was not a mid-level manager as suggested by the defendant. Rather, at the time of her dismissal, she was a very senior manager of the defendant s largest regional office with significant operational responsibilities reporting directly to the defendant s Chief Operations Officer ONSC 5440 (CanLII [21] Further, while 24 months may be the notional cap, which can be exceeded where exceptional circumstances are demonstrated, there have been numerous cases in which older and long term employees in non-executive positions such as the plaintiff have been found to be entitled to 24 months pay in lieu of notice (see: Bolibruck v. Niagara Health System, [2015] O.J. No. 1074, Brien v. Niagara Motors Ltd., [2009] ONCA 887, Lowndes v. Summit Ford Sales Ltd., [2006] O.J. No. 13, Kerr v. Canada Alloy Castings, [2000] O.J. No. 5169, and Cowper v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., [1999] O.J. No [22] In Paquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc ONSC 4184, Perell J. observed that older and long term employees should receive greater damages because they are at a significant disadvantage competing for work. [23] The defendant does not contend that there has been any failure on the part of the plaintiff to mitigate losses, which is her obligation. In the six months following her termination the plaintiff has applied to more than 20 positions in the public, private and not for profit sectors and had received no job offers. The materials submitted in support of the plaintiff s continuous job search and applications submitted establish that she has made significant efforts to try to mitigate her loss, unfortunately with no effect to date. [24] I accept the plaintiff s submission that competition for senior managerial roles is very high in the Greater Toronto area and much more difficult for a person the age of the plaintiff, notwithstanding her undoubted competence and experience. [25] Given the age of the plaintiff, the length of her employment with the defendant, more than 10 years as its Regional Director, a senior managerial position of significant responsibility, the limited availability of similar employment commensurate with her experience, training and qualifications, she is entitled to 24 months payment of salary and benefits in lieu of notice less compensation and benefits received under the ESA. Trust and Accounting v. Contingency Approaches
5 Page: 5 [26] As there is a significant period of time before the expiration of the reasonable notice period in this case, I now turn to the question as to the method of payment of the award and the continuing duty of the plaintiff to take appropriate mitigating steps. [27] The courts have generally recognized two approaches to account for the employee s continuing obligation to mitigate his or her damages: (a The Contingency Approach the employee s damages are discounted by a nominal percentage as contingency for re-employment during the balance of the notice period. (b The Trust and Accounting approach the employee is granted the full judgment, but a trust in favour of the employer is impressed on the judgment funds for the balance of the notice period requiring the employee to account for and repay any mitigation earnings ONSC 5440 (CanLII [28] The defendant favours the contingency approach whereby the damages are discounted as a contingency for the likelihood of re-employment during the balance of the notice period for the reasons as set out by Myers J. in Peticca v. Oracle Canada ULC, [2015] O.J. No at para. 25: Civil litigation is one stop shop. We do not require personal injury plaintiffs to come back and prove their future costs of care have actually been incurred. Instead, the system recognizes that there is early payment, and takes a contingency with the discount as best as the court can do. I agree with Justice L.B. Roberts in Hussain v. Suzuki Canada Ltd., [2011] O.J. No at para. 13, a once and for all assessment is the most consistent with the goals of expeditious, affordable and proportional civil litigation resolution. [29] Where the likelihood of re-employment is considered slight courts have discounted the award by 1 percent, as in Hussain v. Suzuki and Ziten v. Sadie Moranis Realty Corp., [2015] O.J. No. 6839, to 10 percent recently in Peticca v. Oracle because of a difficult job market. The defendant suggests that the discount in this instance should be 5 to 10 percent given the likelihood that the plaintiff will find some alternate employment. [30] The plaintiff favours the trust and accounting approach as applied in Paquette v. TeraGo and Drysdale v. Panasonic as it would accurately reflect the mitigation earnings. As of today there is approximately 15 months in the notice period. Counsel submits that to impose a percentage discount to the award at this point would be quite speculative. I agree. [31] In Thomson v. Bechtel Canada Ltd. (1983, 3 C.C.E.L. 16, at p. 23 Osborne J. observed: The contingency of new employment within the notice period could be somewhat speculatively assessed and imposed upon the notice period to reduce it. In the circumstances of this case, I think it preferable to impose upon the plaintiff a trust, whereby any earnings of the plaintiff until the expiry of the 11 month notice period will be impressed with a trust in favour of the defendant. I am satisfied that
6 Page: 6 the plaintiff has endeavoured to obtain employment throughout and that he will continue with his sincere endeavours to obtain employment. [32] In this instance I am of the same view that the plaintiff will continue in her sincere efforts to obtain alternate employment. [33] Accordingly, the entire award is impressed with a trust in favour of the defendant. At the end of the notice period the plaintiff shall account to the defendant any earnings obtained from new employment within the notice period so as to reduce the defendant s obligation to pay the plaintiff. [34] In the result, the plaintiff is awarded her base salary plus benefits and RRSP contributions for the notice period of 24 months, less payments received from the defendant, CHS to July 27, 2016 under the ESA. I leave it to the parties to calculate the relevant amounts ONSC 5440 (CanLII [35] I would encourage the parties to try to settle the costs of the motion, however, if they are unable to do so, plaintiff s counsel may serve and file written costs submissions not to exceed three pages together with the Bill of Costs within 15 days. The defendant shall deliver similar responding submissions within 10 days thereafter. A.J. O Marra Released: August 30, 2016
7 CITATION: Stephanie Ozorio v. Canadian Hearing Society, 2016 ONSC 5440 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: STEPHANIE OZORIO 2016 ONSC 5440 (CanLII and Plaintiff/Moving Party CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY Defendant/Responding Party REASONS FOR JUDGMENT A.J. O Marra J. Released: August 30, 2016
HEARD: November 14, 2014, December 17, 2014, February 6, 2015 ENDORSEMENT
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Markoulakis v. SNC-Lavalin Inc., 2015 ONSC 1081 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-504720 DATE: 20150416 RE: Eftihios (Ed) Markoulakis, Plaintiff, AND: SNC-Lavalin Inc.,
More informationONTARIO ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant. ) HEARD: September 15, 2017 ENDORSEMENT
CITATION: Fulmer v Nordstrong Equipment Limited, 2017 ONSC 5529 COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-568293 DATE: 20170925 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: GLEN FULMER Kristen Pennington, for the Plaintiff
More informationPage: 2 which resulted in the cessation of the defendant s manufacturing operations in Canada on May 27, [4] The plaintiff had been offered a se
COURT FILE NO.: 08-CV-361809 DATE: 2009/01/12 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: Sivathason Mahesuram Plaintiff Bram Lecker, for the Plaintiff - and - Canac Kitchens Ltd., a Division of Kohler
More informationCARDINAL HEALTH CANADA INC., Defendant ENDORSEMENT. [2] The plaintiff s motion for summary judgment is dismissed.
CITATION: ANDERSON v. CARDINAL HEALTH, 2013 ONSC 5226 COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-471868-0000 DATE: 20130815 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: LILLIAN ANDERSON, Plaintiff AND CARDINAL HEALTH CANADA INC.,
More informationENDORSEMENT months' compensation in lieu of notice; damages equal to the value of his employment benefits; and
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Holmes v. Hatch Ltd., 2017 ONSC 379 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-553456 DATE: 20170202 RE: Paul Holmes, Plaintiff AND: Hatch Ltd., Defendant BEFORE: Pollak J. COUNSEL:
More informationCITATION: Nogueira v Second Cup, 2017 ONSC 6315 COURT FILE NO.: CV DATE: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
CITATION: Nogueira v Second Cup, 2017 ONSC 6315 COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-569192 DATE: 20171020 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: ANNABELLE NOGUEIRA, Plaintiff AND THE SECOND CUP LTD., Defendant BEFORE:
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendant ) )
CITATION: Rodgers v. CEVA, 2014 ONSC 6583 COURT FILE NO.: C-1016-12 DATE: 2014-11-19 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Bruce Rodgers Plaintiff and CEVA Freight Canada Corp Defendant David E. Wires
More informationONTARIO. ) ) Daniel R. McDonald, for the Defendant BAUSCH & LOMB CANADA INC. ) ) ) ) Defendant )
CITATION: Ballim v. Bausch & Lomb Canada Inc., 2016 ONSC 6307 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-548534 DATE: 20161013 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: SAMINA BALLIM Stan Fainzilberg, for the Plaintiff Plaintiff
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION
CITATION: Daniells v. McLellan, 2017 ONSC 6887 COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-5565-CP DATE: 2017/11/29 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: SHERRY-LYNN DANIELLS Plaintiff - and - MELISSA McLELLAN and
More informationPage: 2 [2] The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant for over twelve years when, in 2003, the defendant sold part of its business to Cimco Ref
COURT FILE NO.: 68/04 DATE: 20050214 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT LANE, MATLOW and GROUND JJ. 2005 CanLII 3384 (ON SCDC B E T W E E N: Patrick Boland Appellant (Plaintiff - and -
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT. SWINTON, THORBURN, and COPELAND JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CITATION: Movati Athletic (Group Inc. v. Bergeron, 2018 ONSC 7258 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-18-2411 DATE: 20181206 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SWINTON, THORBURN, and COPELAND
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants RULING RE: ADMISSION OF SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE
CITATION: Wray v. Pereira, 2018 ONSC 4623 OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-91778 DATE: 20180801 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Douglas Wray Plaintiff and Rosemary Pereira and Gil Pereira Defendants
More informationA LITIGATOR S GUIDE TO DAMAGES January 17, 2017 CONTRACT DAMAGES. *With special thanks to Lesley Campbell, Student-at-Law OVERVIEW
A LITIGATOR S GUIDE TO DAMAGES January 17, 2017 CONTRACT DAMAGES Harvin D. Pitch / Jennifer J. Lake *With special thanks to Lesley Campbell, Student-at-Law OVERVIEW 1. Specific Performance & Mitigation
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Intact Insurance Company v. Kisel, 2015 ONCA 205 DATE: 20150326 DOCKET: C59338 and C59339 Laskin, Simmons and Watt JJ.A. Intact Insurance Company and Yaroslava
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) ) Defendant ) ) DECISION ON MOTION:
CITATION: Rush v. Via Rail Canada Inc., 2017 ONSC 2243 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-507160 DATE: 20170518 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Yael Rush and Thomas Rush Plaintiffs and Via Rail Canada Inc.
More informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS. Brandon Jaffe Jaffe & Peritz LLP
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS Brandon Jaffe Jaffe & Peritz LLP 1 SECTION 69 OF THE BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT ( BIA ) 2 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE BIA STAY PROVISIONS 1 Since
More informationPage: 2 Manufacturing Inc. referred to as ( Stork Craft has brought a motion to enforce the alleged settlement agreement between counsel to discontinu
CITATION: Duong v. Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc., 2011 ONSC 2534 COURT FILE NO.: CV-09-46962CP DATE: 2011/05/12 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: DAVID DUONG, RINKU SINGH and CHRISTINA WOOF Plaintiffs
More informationONTARIO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs. Defendants REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CITATION: Keenan v. Canac Kitchens, 2015 ONSC 1055 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-420147 DATE: 20150121 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: MARILYN KEENAN and LAWRENCE KEENAN c.o.b. as KEENAN CABINETRY and
More informationCHARITY & NFP LAW BULLETIN NO. 427
CHARITY & NFP LAW BULLETIN NO. 427 AUGUST 30, 2018 EDITOR: TERRANCE S. CARTER COURT OF APPEAL: TERMINATION CLAUSE EXCLUDES COMMON LAW DAMAGES By Barry W. Kwasniewski * A. INTRODUCTION On June 22, 2018,
More information$46, in Canadian Currency (In rem), Respondent. June 16, 2010; with subsequent written submissions. REASONS FOR DECISION
CITATION: Attorney General of Ontario v. CDN. $46,078.46, 2010 ONSC 3819 COURT FILE NO.: CV-10-404140 DATE: 20100705 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Attorney General of Ontario, Applicant AND:
More informationCOUNSEL: K. C. Tranquilli, for the Defendants P. Chang and S. Power/Moving Parties D. Gilbert, for the Plaintiffs/Responding Parties
AHERNE et al. v CHANG et al. CITATION: 2012 ONSC2689 COURT FILE NO.: CV-08-358325 DATE: 2012/05/02 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: AHERNE et al. v CHANG et al. MASTER RONNA M. BROTT COUNSEL:
More informationCase Name: CEJ Poultry Inc. v. Intact Insurance Co.
Page 1 Case Name: CEJ Poultry Inc. v. Intact Insurance Co. Counsel: RE: CEJ Poultry Inc., and Intact Insurance Company and The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company [2012] O.J. No. 3005 2012 ONSC
More informationFortress Real Developments Inc., Fortress Real Capital Inc., Jawad Rathore and Vince Petrozza, Plaintiffs ENDORSEMENT
CITATION: Fortress Real Developments Inc. v. Rabidoux, 2017 ONSC 167 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-546813 DATE: 20170111 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Fortress Real Developments Inc., Fortress Real Capital
More informationCHARITY & NFP LAW BULLETIN NO. 387
CHARITY & NFP LAW BULLETIN NO. 387 JUNE 23, 2016 EDITOR: TERRANCE S. CARTER COURT LIMITS TEMPORARY LAY-OFF RIGHTS By Barry W. Kwasniewski * A. INTRODUCTION On March 18, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) Defendant ) ) ) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CITATION: Hagholm v. Coreio Inc., 2017 ONSC 7713 COURT FILE NO.: C-305-17 DATE: 2017-12-27 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Rosemary Hagholm Plaintiff and Coreio Inc. Defendant Dennis G. Crawford
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants RULING RE: ADMISSION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE OF DR. FINKELSTEIN
CITATION: Wray v. Pereira, 2018 ONSC 4621 OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-91778 DATE: 20180801 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Douglas Wray Plaintiff and Rosemary Pereira and Gil Pereira Defendants
More informationGowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Mark Siegel and Rosanne Dawson, Defendants. Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP, Third Party
CITATION: Ozerdinc Family Trust et al v Gowling et al, 2017 ONSC 6 COURT FILE NO.: 13-57421 A1 DATE: 2017/01/03 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: Ozerdinc Family Trust, Muharrem Ersin Ozerdinc,
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1806/09
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1806/09 BEFORE: J. P. Moore : Vice-Chair HEARING: June 17, 2010 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: July 27, 2010 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2010 ONWSIAT
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) Defendant ) ) ) ) HEARD: September 24, Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-333934CP DATE: 20091016 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: 405341 ONTARIO LIMITED Plaintiff - and - MIDAS CANADA INC. Defendant Allan Dick, David Sterns and Sam Hall
More informationA Snapshot of the Law and Trends on the Admissibility and Qualification of Expert Evidence
A Snapshot of the Law and Trends on the Admissibility and Qualification of Expert Evidence By Stacey Hsu and Daniel Reisler of Reisler Franklin LLP, Toronto In light of the recent media coverage surrounding
More informationMEETING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
NUTS&BOLTS BY GILLIAN MAYS MEETING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS Introduction The 10-day notice periods prescribed by the Municipal Act, 20011 and the City of Toronto Act, 2006,2 have been judicially referred to
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT ) ) ) HEARD in writing. REASONS FOR DECISION (Motion for Leave to Appeal)
CITATION: Babcock v. Destefano 2017 ONSC 276 COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-458641 DATE: 20170113 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT BETWEEN: REGGIE BABCOCK Respondent/Plaintiff/ and ANGELO DESTEFANO
More informationLicence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) Advocacy
Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) Advocacy Preparing for the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) Hearing: Considerations of the Applicant Prior to commencing a LAT hearing, Applicants should consider the following:
More informationCITATION: Maxrelco Immeubles Inc. v Jim Pattison Industries Ltd ONSC 5836 COURT FILE NO.: DATE: 2017/09/29 ONTARIO
CITATION: Maxrelco Immeubles Inc. v Jim Pattison Industries Ltd. 2017 ONSC 5836 COURT FILE NO.: 10-49174 DATE: 2017/09/29 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: Maxrelco Immeubles Inc. Plaintiff
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISON
CITATION: Lapierre v. Lecuyer, 2018 ONSC 1540 COURT FILE NO.: 16-68322/19995/16 DATE: 2018/04/10 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: MARTINE LaPIERRE, AMY COULOMBE, ANTHONY MICHAEL COULOMBE and
More information2013 ONSC 5288 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. S&R Flooring Concepts Inc. v. RLC Stratford LP
2013 ONSC 5288 Ontario Superior Court of Justice S&R Flooring Concepts Inc. v. RLC Stratford LP 2013 CarswellOnt 12254, 2013 ONSC 5288, 232 A.C.W.S. (3d) 95, 31 C.L.R. (4th) 89 S&R Flooring Concepts Inc.,
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST. IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c.
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST Court File No. CV-15-10832-00CL IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR DECISION
CITATION: Boyadjian v. Durham (Regional Municipality, 2016 ONSC 6477 OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: 74724/11 DATE: 20161101 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: LUCY BOYADJIAN Plaintiff and THE REGIONAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Between: Date: 20160913 Docket: S164006 Registry: Vancouver Vesna Mudrovcic Plaintiff And Engenuity Manufacturing Solutions Ltd. Defendant Before: The Honourable
More informationCase Name: Gnanasegaram v. Allianz Insurance Co. of Canada
Page 1 Case Name: Gnanasegaram v. Allianz Insurance Co. of Canada Between Karla Gnanasegaram, plaintiff/appellant, and Allianz Insurance Company of Canada, defendant/respondent [2005] O.J. No. 1076 251
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Bates v. John Bishop Jewellers Limited, 2009 BCSC 158 Errol Bates John Bishop Jewellers Limited Date: 20090212 Docket: S082271 Registry:
More informationCITATION: Morison v Ergo-Industrial Seating Systems Inc., 2016 ONSC 6725 COURT FILE NO.: DATE:
CITATION: Morison v Ergo-Industrial Seating Systems Inc., 2016 ONSC 6725 COURT FILE NO.:13-56686 DATE: 2016-10-28 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Tom Morison, Plaintiff AND Ergo-Industrial Seating
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, and- IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. HÔTEL-DIEU GRACE HOSPITAL - the Employer.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS ACT, 1995 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: HÔTEL-DIEU GRACE HOSPITAL - the Employer -and- -and- NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, TRANSPORTATION AND
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT R.S.O. 1990, C. S.5, AS AMENDED - AND. IN THE MATTER OF DAVID CHARLES PHILLIPS and JOHN RUSSELL WILSON
Ontario Commission des 22 nd Floor 22e étage Securities valeurs mobilières 20 Queen Street West 20, rue queen ouest Commission de l Ontario Toronto ON M5H 3S8 Toronto ON M5H 3S8 IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520 DATE: 20150709 DOCKET: C59661 BETWEEN Laskin, Lauwers and Hourigan JJ.A.
More informationOntario Court Declines to Impose a Duty on a Bank to Protect Third-Party Victims of a Fraud based on Constructive Knowledge
Ontario Court Declines to Impose a Duty on a Bank to Protect Third-Party Victims of a Fraud based on Constructive Knowledge I. Overview Mark Evans and Ara Basmadjian Dentons Canada LLP In 1169822 Ontario
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Black, 2006 BCSC 1357 Regina v. Date: Docket: Registry: Kelowna 2006 BCSC 1357
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Black, 2006 BCSC 1357 Regina v. Date: 20060901 Docket: 57596 Registry: Kelowna Ronda Petra Black Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Humphries
More informationUNION PROPOSALS. Comprehensive Offer for Settlement. Without prejudice. Between the. Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU)
Document U-17 November 6, 2017 6:00pm UNION PROPOSALS Comprehensive Offer for Settlement Without prejudice Between the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) For the College Academic Staff (the
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs ) Defendant ) DECISION ON COSTS
BROCKVILLE COURT FILE NO.: 05-0083 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: DUSKA BARKLEY, PEYTON BARKLEY, Jonathan A. Schwartzman, for the Plaintiffs MARATHA BARKLEY, by their Litigation Guardian,
More information[4] The defendant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Ontario carrying on business as a theme water park in Limoges Ontario.
CITATION: CYR v. CALYPSO PARC INC. 2016 ONSC 2683 COURT FILE NO.: 12-54440 DATE: May 11, 2016 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: FRANCINE CYR Plaintiff AND: CALYPSO PARC INC. Defendant BEFORE: COUNSEL:
More informationRE: The Board s refusal to allow public access to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Hearings
Direct Line: 604-630-9928 Email: Laura@bccla.org BY EMAIL January 20, 2016 Peter Watson, Chair National Energy Board 517 Tenth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2R 0A8 RE: The Board s refusal to allow public
More informationAviva Canada Inc. & Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, Defendants
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Romanko v. Aviva, 2017 ONSC 2393 COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-38350PD2 DATE: 20170419 RE: BEFORE: Omelian Romanko & Neonila Romanko, Plaintiffs AND: Aviva Canada
More informationrespect to the Committee s study of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program ( TFWP ).
Submissions respecting the Temporary Foreign Worker Program review by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities Juliana Dalley,
More informationCITATION: Mary Shuttleworth v. Licence Appeal Tribunal, 2018 ONSC 3790 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 334/17 DATE: ONTARIO
CITATION: Mary Shuttleworth v. Licence Appeal Tribunal, 2018 ONSC 3790 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 334/17 DATE: 20180620 BETWEEN: MARY SHUTTLEWORTH Applicant and SAFETY, LICENSING APPEALS AND STANDARDS
More information2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Cruz v. McPherson CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720
2014 ONSC 4841 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Cruz v. McPherson 2014 CarswellOnt 11387, 2014 ONSC 4841, 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 720 Terra Cruz and Carmen Cruz, Plaintiffs and Jason Mcpherson, 546291 Ontario
More informationUNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT OF 1994
UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT OF 1994 USERRA is a federal statute that protects servicemembers and veterans civilian employment rights. Among other things, under certain conditions,
More information- 2 - ENDORSEMENT Daley J. [1] This matter involves a motion for court approval of a settlement in this action pursuant to Rule 7.08 of the Rules of C
COURT FILE NO.: CV-05-011954 DATE: 20081006 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: IN CHAMBERS PARAMJIT SINGH DHALIWAL, BALWINDER SINGH DHALIWAL, JASWINDER KAUR DHALIWAL and AMARJIT GAKHAL Gurcharan
More information2018 MUNICIPAL ELECTION INFORMATION FOR CANDIDATES
2018 MUNICIPAL ELECTION INFORMATION FOR CANDIDATES Table of Contents PART A: Basic Information Important Dates 3 Elected Offices 4 PART B: Qualifications Member of Council 5 Elector Qualifications 5 Disqualification
More informationPage 2 [2] The action arose from a motor vehicle accident on October 9, The plaintiff Anthony Okafor claimed two million dollars and the plainti
CITATION: OKAFOR v. MARKEL INSURANCE & KROPKA, 2010 ONSC 2093 COURT FILE NO.: C42087/97 DATE: 2010-06-01 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: JUNE OKAFOR AND ANTHONY OKAFOR Plaintiffs - and
More informationCase Name: Beiko v. Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines
Page 1 Case Name: Beiko v. Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines Between Dr. George Beiko, Dr. Lawrence Aedy, Dr. Bruce Lennox and Dr. Gerald Scaife, Plaintiffs/Respondents, and Hotel Dieu Hospital St. Catharines,
More informationHALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON
CITATION: Whitters v. Furtive Networks Inc., 2012 ONSC 2159 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-420068 DATE: 20120405 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON - and - FURTIVE NETWORKS
More informationCHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Fox v. Narine, 2016 ONSC 6499 COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-526934 DATE: 20161020 RE: CHEYENNE SANTANA MARIE FOX, DECEASED, JOHN GRAHAM TERRANCE FOX, ESTATE TRUSTEE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Jones v. Zimmer GMBH, 2016 BCSC 1847 Dennis Jones and Susan Wilkinson Date: 20161006 Docket: S095493 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiffs Zimmer
More informationLITIGATION PLAN BERG V. CANADIAN HOCKEY LEAGUE ET AL. AS AT JUNE 15, 2016
LITIGATION PLAN BERG V. CANADIAN HOCKEY LEAGUE ET AL. AS AT JUNE 15, 2016 DEFINITIONS 1. The following defined terms apply: (a) (b) (c) Action means this proposed class proceeding, Court File No. CV-14-514423,
More informationCHARITY & NFP LAW BULLETIN NO. 418
CHARITY & NFP LAW BULLETIN NO. 418 MARCH 29, 2018 EDITOR: TERRANCE S. CARTER COURT REVIEWS COMMON EMPLOYER DOCTRINE By Barry W. Kwasniewski * A. INTRODUCTION On February 5, 2018, the Ontario Superior Court
More informationHoule v. St. Jude Medical Inc., 2018 ONCA 88 (CanLII) COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Houle v. St. Jude Medical Inc., 2018 ONCA 88 (CanLII) Date: 2018-02-01 File M48474 number: Citation: Houle v. St. Jude Medical Inc., 2018 ONCA 88 (CanLII), , retrieved on 2018-02-01
More informationHome Capital Group Inc., Gerald M. Soloway, Robert Morton and Robert J Blowes (Defendants)
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: McDonald v. Home Capital Group, 2017 ONSC 5004 COURT FILE NO.: 349/17 CP DATE: 20170823 RE: Claire R. McDonald (Plaintiff) AND: Home Capital Group Inc., Gerald
More informationNOTICE OF CERTIFICATION and PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS PROCEEDING
1 NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION and PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS PROCEEDING Re: Charlotte Perrenoud and Rajesh Bedi v. ehealth Ontario and Her Majesty The Queen In Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister
More informationTo Seek a Stay or Not to Seek a Stay
To Seek a Stay or Not to Seek a Stay Paul D. Guy and Scott McGrath; WeirFoulds LLP Is seeking a stay of foreign proceedings a prerequisite to obtaining an anti-suit injunction in Canada? An anti-suit injunction
More informationFACULTY SERVICE OFFICER AGREEMENT
UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA FACULTY SERVICE OFFICER AGREEMENT July 2017 Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Comprehensive Collective Bargaining and Strike/Lockout Activity reached between
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO. Crljenica, T., Counsel for Perth Insurance Company/Responding Party REASONS FOR DECISION
RE: BEFORE: COUNSEL: CITATION: Charway v. TD General Insurance Company et al., 2017 ONSC 4593 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-511937 MOTION HEARD: 11042017 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO Jessica Charway, Plaintiff/Moving
More informationHoulden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter
2012 37 Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter Date: September 10, 2012 Headlines The Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the issue of how to distribute commingled funds to the victims of a fraudulent
More informationYoung offender confessions: right versus required. R. v. S.S. (2007) Ont. C.A. 1. By Gino Arcaro B.Sc., M.Ed
Young offender confessions: right versus required R. v. S.S. (2007) Ont. C.A. 1 By Gino Arcaro B.Sc., M.Ed I. Sec. 146(2)(b)(iv) and sec. 146(6) YCJA Among the numerous controversies surrounding young
More informationTowards an Inclusive Framework for the Right to Legal Capacity. in Nova Scotia
Towards an Inclusive Framework for the Right to Legal Capacity in Nova Scotia A Brief Submitted in Response to: The Law Reform Commission of Nova Scotia s Discussion Paper on the Powers of Attorney Act
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Court File No. CV-12-444388 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: EPOCH S GARAGE LIMITED, COOK SCHOOL BUS LINES LIMITED, 678928 ONTARIO INC. and ROBERT DOUGLAS AKITT O/A DOUG AKITT BUS LINES - and
More informationNumber 45 of 2001 PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES (PART-TIME WORK) ACT, 2001 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART 1. Preliminary and General
Number 45 of 2001 PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES (PART-TIME WORK) ACT, 2001 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART 1 Preliminary and General Section 1. Short title, collective citation and construction. 2. Commencement.
More informationSINO-FOREST SECURITIES LITIGATION
SINO-FOREST SECURITIES LITIGATION NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH BDO LIMITED - and - NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF DISTRIBUTION PROTOCOL(S) FOR THE BDO, HORSLEY AND DIRECTORS SETTLEMENT FUNDS - and - NOTICE
More informationNOTICE OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING AND SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING NOTICE OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING AND SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING to be held on Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. Portage Exhibition Portage la Prairie, Manitoba The items of business
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2017] NZEmpC 129 EMPC 168/2017. PHOENIX PUBLISHING LTD Applicant. LILY MCCALLUM Respondent
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND [2017] NZEmpC 129 EMPC 168/2017 an application to extend time to file a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA MESHAKE: NTHABISENG EMILY J U D G M E N T
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationPlaintiff counsel beware - It is now easier to dismiss an action for delay
Plaintiff counsel beware - It is now easier to dismiss an action for delay Three recent judgments of the Court of Appeal show that plaintiffs face two serious dangers, should they fail to prosecute their
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Tapak v. Non-Marine Underwriters, 2018 ONCA 168 DATE: 20180220 DOCKET: C64205 Hourigan, Roberts and Nordheimer JJ.A. BETWEEN Carrie Anne Tapak, Dennis Cromarty, Faye
More informationFACTUM OF THE APPLICANT (Motion Returnable June 16, 2016)
Court File No.: CV-16-11410-00CL ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL LIST) IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF PHOENIX
More informationPRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES PTY LTD ( PPL ) LEGAL ACCESS PLAN MEMBERSHIP CONTRACT
PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES PTY LTD ( PPL ) LEGAL ACCESS PLAN MEMBERSHIP CONTRACT INDEX LEGAL ACCESS PLAN MEMBERSHIP CONTRACT... 1 TERMS AND CONDITIONS SECTION 1: PREVENTATIVE LEGAL SERVICES... 2 SECTION 2:
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) ) Defendants ) ) HEARD: March 2, 2005 PROCEEDING UNDER THE CLASS PROCEEDINGS ACT, 1992
COURT FILE NO.: 95-CU-82186CA DATE: 2005/03/08 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: DAVID CAPUTO, LUNA ROTH, LORI CAWARDINE and DAVID GORDON HYDUK, as Estate Trustee of the Estate of RUSSELL
More informationHOT TOPICS IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT. presented by J. Sebastian Winny on Saturday, April 28, 2018 for members of the Ontario Paralegal Association
HOT TOPICS IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT presented by J. Sebastian Winny on Saturday, April 28, 2018 for members of the Ontario Paralegal Association This presentation will address five subjects which are topical
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Gosselin v. Shepherd, 2010 BCSC 755 April Gosselin Date: 20100527 Docket: S104306 Registry: New Westminster Plaintiff Mark Shepherd and Dr.
More informationLOWIN. and W PORTSMOUTH & CO. JUDGMENT (As Approved)
[2016] EWHC 2301 (QB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Case No: QB/2016/0049 The Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Monday, 20 June 2016 BEFORE: MRS JUSTICE ELISABETH LAING
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Reed v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2017 NSSC 85
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Reed v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2017 NSSC 85 Date: 2017-03-28 Docket: Hfx. No. 456782 Registry: Halifax Between: Warren Reed, Gerry Post, Ben Marson,
More informationCLIENT-LAWYER RELATIONSHIP: FEES MRPC 1.5
CLIENT-LAWYER RELATIONSHIP: FEES MRPC 1.5 1 RULE 1.5: GENERAL RULE (a) A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses. The factors
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI [2017] NZDC COMMERCE COMMISSION Informant. BEST BUY LIMITED Defendant
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI-2016-004-010600 [2017] NZDC 13575 Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 BETWEEN AND COMMERCE COMMISSION Informant
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, NORDHEIMER & PATTILLO JJ. ) ) ) ) Respondent )
CITATION: Riddell v. Apple Canada Inc., 2016 ONSC 6014 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-15-895-00 (Oshawa DATE: 20160926 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, NORDHEIMER & PATTILLO JJ.
More informationCase Name: Laudon v. Roberts. Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants. [2010] O.J. No.
Page 1 Case Name: Laudon v. Roberts Between Rick Laudon, Plaintiff, and Will Roberts and Keith Sullivan, Defendants [2010] O.J. No. 315 2010 ONSC 433 Court File No. 02-B5188 Counsel: B. Keating, for the
More informationCITATION: Berta v. Arcor Windows and Doors Inc., 2016 ONSC 7395
CITATION: Berta v. Arcor Windows and Doors Inc., 2016 ONSC 7395 COURT FILE NO.: C-14-2600-SR DATE: 2016/11/29 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Steve Berta and Manon Berta, Plaintiffs AND: Arcor
More informationDIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE CAPITAL ONE BANK (CANADA BRANCH) APPELLANT S FACTUM I. STATEMENT OF THE APPEAL
Divisional Court File No. DC-12-463-00 DIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: CAPITAL ONE BANK (CANADA BRANCH) -and- Plaintiff (Appellant) LAURA M. TOOGOOD aka LAURA MARIE TOOGOOD aka
More informationChodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc. et al. [Indexed as: Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc.]
Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc. et al. [Indexed as: Chodowski v. Huntsville Professional Building Inc.] 104 O.R. (3d) 73 2010 ONSC 4897 Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Wood J. September
More informationFILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/03/ :59 PM INDEX NO /2016E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/03/2016
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/03/2016 03:59 PM INDEX NO. 25545/2016E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/03/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX ------------------------------------------------------x
More informationCOURT FILE NO.: 07-CV DATE: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK IN
COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-344028 DATE: 20091218 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: A1 PRESSURE SENSITIVE PRODUCTS INC. (Plaintiff) v. BOSTIK INC. (Defendant) Justice Stinson COUNSEL: Kevin D. Sherkin,
More informationCase Comment: Ontario Inc. et al v. Tutor Time Learning Centres, LLC, et al. [2006] O.J. No (S.C.J.), confirmed on appeal April 12, 2007
Scotia Plaza 40 King St. West, Suite 5800 P.O. Box 1011 Toronto, ON Canada M5H 3S1 Tel. 416.595.8500 Fax.416.595.8695 www.millerthomson.com TORONTO VANCOUVER WHITEHORSE CALGARY EDMONTON LONDON KITCHENER-WATERLOO
More informationEveryone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion;
Date: 20070904 Docket: IMM-3266-07 Citation: 2007 FC 882 Ottawa, Ontario, September 4, 2007 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Harrington BETWEEN: DIOGO CICHACZEWSKI and GLORIA DANIELS Applicants and
More information