This was a preliminary issue hearing at the LAT wherein the insurer was successful in striking
her LAT application as the applicant had entered into a valid settlement agreement.
This was an urgent motion brought to the Divisional Court in an attempt to stay an impending
LAT hearing to allow for a judicial review to take place. The LAT had denied the respondent’s
adjournment request. Despite the importance of procedural fairness and the maintenance of
the appearance of fairness, the stay was not granted as counsel needs to be available for
existing dates before agreeing to act on a matter.
Acting for the Defendant small business owner, Ms. Barber brought a Right to Sue
Application which barred the Plaintiff from pursuing a personal injury lawsuit.
Ms. Barber successfully barred a multi-million-dollar personal injury lawsuit with a Right to
Sue Application. The decision was upheld on both the reconsideration and Judicial Review.
After successfully defending Mr. Hillary at trial, the Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Plaintiff argued that Mr. Hillary should be responsible for the $1.8M cost of remediating the contamination on the Plaintiff’s property. The Court of Appeal agreed with our position and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Tara successfully defended this appeal from a Small Claims Court Judgment to the Divisional Court. Central to the Appeal was the question of whether or not Deputy Justice Fortier had correctly applied the law as it related to unjust enrichment and whether or not the defence of change of position applied.
Kelly Hart successfully defended a store owner against allegations of assault, battery, and wrongful imprisonment in a three week trial. The jury found against the Plaintiff and the claim was dismissed in its entirety.
Within the trial, Kelly successfully defended a motion in which the Plaintiff sought to exclude all of the Defendants’ surveillance evidence. Justice S. Corthorn ordered that the Defendants were entitled to use significant portions of the surveillance at trial.
Kelly Hart represented the Defendant succeeding both on a cross-motion and in dismissing the Plaintiff’s motion. The Plaintiff sought to use the evidence of his former solicitor alone in support of his motion to proceed with the action under a pseudonym. This affidavit was struck and the court found that even if the affidavit has remained, on the evidence presented, he would not have been able to properly consider the required factors for allowing a case to proceed with a party assuming a pseudonym.
Kelly Hart successfully represented the Plaintiff at trial, followed by a dismissal of the Defendant’s appeal to the Divisional Court. The Plaintiff was awarded damages and costs for vandalism losses sustained to his vehicle while under the care and control of the Defendant.
Eric Williams represented the complainant seeking judicial review of the CITT's decision to dismiss its complaint. The Federal Court of Appeal remitted the matter back to the CITT for hearing on certain issues. The CITT ruled against Xwave and refused to grant an oral hearing with reference to the government’s “intention” in drafting the R.F.P. The F.C.A. agreed with the government—holding the CITT was not in breach of the Rules of Natural Justice in failing to order an oral hearing.
