You Be the Judge

H. Clark Adams

• Publisher: Dundurn Press
• Year: 2011
• ISBN:
  9781459700901
• Topic: Derecho
• Subtopic: Educación jurídica

It's enough to put you off wedded bliss forever, but if you did harbour strong opinions on how the case Smith v Brown — a couple on the brink of matrimony, interfering relatives notwithstanding — should unfold, H. Clark Adams welcomes you to the legal arena of small claims court. Here feuding former lovers, despondent homeowners, and singed shopkeepers bring their grievances against their erstwhile partners in love and business for a ruling that could end the troubled relationship and maybe even offer them material or monetary comfort. In a tone that's distinctly light-hearted, the retired deputy judge offers readers a fictionalized sampling of the cases presented at small claims court, and the chance for them to pit their best instincts and powers of judgment against his. Part I of the book is a collection of cases from the gripping to the ridiculous, while Part II features Adams's decisions on the cases presented. If your view on these 60 cases differs from the learned judge, be warned: no appeal to his decision has ever been successful.

Part I

Part I

The

Cases

— 1 —

Lynne Smith

vs.

Gerald Brown

Opening Statement

The plaintiff, Lynne Smith, feels she was stood up by her fiancé, the defendant, Gerald Brown, and wishes to recover her monetary loss. Brown, on the other hand, says he was dumped by Smith and wants his ring back.

The Evidence

Lynne Smith and Gerald Brown had known each other as high school friends, but it was not until about five years after graduation that their paths crossed again. They dated for about three years and Gerald proposed marriage to Lynne and gave her a ring, which he said cost him $4,000. The couple set a date some three months away and Lynne went full speed ahead to arrange the wedding. She put a deposit of $400 on a hall for the reception, which could accommodate 200 people. Among her three bridesmaids was Gerald’s sister, Susan. The evidence was that Lynne and Susan had not really got along during the courtship, but that Lynne felt some minor obligation to have her included in the wedding party. Gerald was close to his sister and it appears that he pressured Lynne to have Susan included in the wedding party. Almost from the beginning Susan, according to Lynne, wanted to play a major part in the ongoing arrangements and Lynne resented her interference. On several occasions they had major fights over the wedding plans and Gerald invariably took his sister’s side. Lynne thought everything would eventually work out with her sister-in-law to be and continued preparation for the wedding ceremony. The material for the wedding dress was purchased at a cost of $700 and a seamstress was hired to make the dress. The seamstress was paid in advance for her estimated time in making the dress, a sum of $350. Flowers were ordered and a deposit paid in the amount of $250. Caterers were selected and a menu decided upon and a further deposit of $10 per person for a total of $2,000 was paid.

Lynne’s evidence was that Gerald did not contribute any monies toward the deposits made by her and, in fact, as a result of his recent layoff from his job, borrowed $75 from Lynne for the deposit on his tuxedo.

Lynne testified that about one month before the wedding date, Gerald, without discussion or notice, advised Lynne that he was calling the whole thing off. Lynne believed that Gerald’s decision was a result of a dispute she had with Susan over the style of the dresses the bridesmaids would wear.

Susan did not testify.

Gerald is demanding return of the $4,000 ring he gave to Lynne and is denying any obligation he might have for the expenses incurred by Lynne. He did not give any evidence in regard to what Lynne said was his unilateral decision to call off the engagement and wedding, but said that he was entitled to his ring.

The bottom line is that Lynne wishes to be reimbursed her expenses: $700 for the wedding dress and $350 for the seamstress, a $250 deposit for the flowers, $400 for the hall rental deposit, and $2,000 paid to the caterers. She also wants the $75 back she paid for Gerald’s tuxedo. Her total claim amounts to $3,775. Gerald wants his ring back.

The question to be decided: whether there was a contract and, if so, was there a breach of contract?

You be the judge.

— 2 —

James Karston

vs.

The Plumbing Place

Opening Statement

The plaintiff, James Karston, entered into a written contract with the defendant, The Plumbing Place, and paid a deposit. He alleges no work was ever done. The defendant is countersuing for breach of contract and for damages that followed from not being able to complete the contract, suffering, as a result, a loss of potential profit.

The Evidence

Karston checked out the credentials and experience of The Plumbing Place and determined they had designed and installed bathrooms and showers for 18 years. Karston and The Plumbing Place entered into a contract for the installation of a new shower in the master bedroom in Karston’s home. The Plumbing Place attended at Karston’s with two designers to determine what was necessary and to give a price. An enclosed shower was already present in a corner of the bedroom. It had two solid outside walls, a solid inside wall in which the water pipes were installed, and another inside wall that had the door to the shower. Karston wanted the new shower to have ceramic tile on the floor and the two outside walls. The inside walls were to be of glass with a glass door.

The designers drew up a plan and gave a price of $7,000. Karston paid a $3,500 deposit.

When the workers came several weeks later with the specially ordered tiles and plumbing supplies, they realized that there was a problem about the installation of the water pipes. Because the new shower’s two inside walls were to be glass they realized the water supply pipes would have to be installed in one of the two outside walls. This would create a problem in the winter with the likelihood of the pipes freezing.

The workers phoned their supervisor and he came out to the job site and viewed the situation and advised Karston that the job would cost an additional $500. Karston refused to pay and The Plumbing Place refused to proceed with the work.

After several heated telephone conversations between the parties in which unpleasant remarks were made, matters came to a standstill.

Karston, after several months elapsed with failure to obtain return of his deposit, started the court action. The Plumbing Place commenced a defence and counterclaim saying it was entitled to keep the deposit and sought damages for loss of profit in not being able to complete the job.

During the trial, both parties were a little bit more than nasty to each other and on several occasions I was obliged to advise them that their conduct was unacceptable and if it continued I would adjourn the case to a date at which calmness and politeness would prevail.

The questions to be decided today: whether on the evidence the plaintiff should recover his deposit and whether, as a result of what appears to be a breach of contract, the defendant can obtain monetary damages for his loss of worth?

You be the judge.

— 3 —

John Stillwell

vs.

Longshore Board of Education and Jack Snider, Principal of Long Beach Public School

Opening Statement

The plaintiff, John Stillwell, the father of a 12-year-old slightly autistic son attending Long Beach Public School, has requested information in regard to his son Robert’s progress. The defendants, Longshore Board of Education (the Board) and Jack Snider, have refused to provide reports on Robert’s progress.

The Evidence

John Stillwell is divorced from his wife, Emma. They have joint custody of Robert. The divorce procedure was a nasty one and Emma has refused to provide any school records for John. The separation agreement provides that both parents shall have joint custody of Robert, but, in fact, Robert has resided with his mother.

At some point several years after the divorce, Emma was unable to look after Robert and John couldn’t because he had a job in an isolated community in the far north. The parties attended with their lawyers before the judge who made the original custody order and the custody agreement was revised to give custody of Robert to Earl Stillwell, a brother of John. The custody order in favour of Earl was to be for one year.

The revised custody was filed with Jack Snider, the principal of Robert’s school. All reports from the school in regard to Robert were given routinely to Earl.

Jack Snider, the principal, refused to co-operate even though he apparently knew that John was concerned about his son, particularly with his learning ability because of his autism.

John went over Jack Snider’s head and wrote letters to the Board superintendent requesting reports on Robert. After four or five letters, the Board wrote to John refusing information on Robert. The Board took the position that only Earl could be provided with the information, notwithstanding that Earl’s custody for one year had long since expired.

John then sought legal advice and his lawyer wrote a letter to the Board explaining that the custody in favour of Earl had expired and that John and Emma had joint custody and both were entitled to be informed of Robert’s progress.

The Board continued to refuse to provide the information to John, although it was providing the information to Emma.

John then brought this action to force the Board and its principal to co-operate, and he also sought monetary relief for his time and trouble and for his lawyer’s fees.

The question here: whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief he sought, namely to get reports from the defendants on his son’s progress?

You be the judge.

— 4 —

Alan and Emily Cherry

vs.

Quick Air

Opening Statement

The plaintiffs, Alan and Emily Cherry, took a flight to Cuba on Quick Air, the defendant, in January 2009. Their flight included 11 days at a nice resort. On arrival in Cuba their luggage could not be found and it included Alan’s essential medicine for his heart condition. The Cherrys said their holiday was ruined and they are suing for return of their money paid for the trip.

The Evidence

The Cherrys bought a package deal that included a flight, 11 days at a resort in Varadero, and all their transportation to and from the airport in Cuba. The price for each of them was $1,750.

They had not previously taken a trip by air.

Both Alan and Emily testified that when they checked in at Pearson International in Toronto they were told all their liquid items such as hair shampoo, toothpaste, and Alan’s liquid heart medicine, specifically nitroglycerine, had to be packed in their suitcase for checking in and not put in their carry on.

Alan Cherry gave his age as 86 and Emily’s as 82.

An airline service representative testified that none of their employees would ever give such erroneous information to anyone.

In any event, when their plane arrived in Cuba the luggage could not be found. All the other passengers had picked up their luggage and departed the air terminal and only the Cherrys remained.

Emily spoke to someone in the terminal who seemed to be in charge of lost luggage and after several more hours the Cherrys were informed that their luggage, for unknown reasons, was still in Toronto but would come on the next flight two days later.

Alan became even more agitated and his need for his nitroglycerine became urgent.

The airline representative from Quick Air told the Cherrys that the flight was returning to Toronto shortly and that there were available seats. Not wanting to be without his medicine Alan Cherry decided to return to Toronto, arriving around 11:30 p.m.

Once in Toronto they tried for three hours to get their luggage, which Alan said was lost in the terminal building.

Finally around 3:00 a.m. their luggage was found and they took a taxi home to Barrie. No public transportation to Barrie was available at 3:00 a.m.

The Cherrys are suing for return of what they paid for the holiday and for the cost for the taxi ride home in the amount of $160 and for their court costs.

Today I have to decide on the evidence if the plaintiffs are entitled to recover as a result of the apparent inability of the defendant to turn over the Cherrys’ luggage.

You be the judge.