A.A. Sanfilippo

The applicant sought a declaration that the eastern boundary of his property was governed by an 1887 plan of subdivision rather than a conflicting 1888 plan.

The discrepancy created an overlap area.

The court found that the historical fence line, previous surveys, and the parties' use of the properties all aligned with the 1887 plan.

The court granted the declaration, noting that the applicant had also established possessory title through adverse possession of the overlap area prior to the properties' conversion to the Land Titles system.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought forfeiture of the contents of several bank accounts under the Civil Remedies Act.

At the scheduled hearing, the court found that the AG had uploaded over 112,000 pages of unorganized and improperly formatted documents to CaseLines, rendering the electronic record unusable.

The court adjourned the hearing and issued detailed procedural directions for the proper organization, hyperlinking, and uploading of the electronic materials.

The mother appealed a temporary order granting the father decision-making authority over whether their 10-year-old child should receive routine childhood vaccinations.

The mother argued the motion judge erred by changing the status quo before trial, taking judicial notice of vaccine safety, and relying on unsworn letters from physicians.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the best interests of the child test, properly took judicial notice of adjudicative and legislative facts regarding vaccine safety, and made no reversible error in admitting the medical evidence or deciding the motion without the child's views and preferences.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his attending physician's finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board failed to consider evidence that his psychosis was drug-induced, ignored family dynamics, and failed to address a prior Board decision finding him capable.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test under the Health Care Consent Act and had ample cogent evidence to conclude the appellant lacked the capacity to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a treatment decision.

The moving party, a condominium unit owner, brought a pre-emptive motion under Rule 25.11 to strike the condominium corporation's Notice of Application and the supporting affidavit.

The underlying application sought to amend the condominium declaration to correct an allegedly inequitable allocation of common expenses.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the Notice of Application, finding it pleaded a reasonable issue.

The court partially granted the motion to strike the affidavit, expunging specific paragraphs containing inadmissible hearsay and scandalous statements, but left the majority of the evidentiary objections for the application judge to determine on a full record.

At the opening of a scheduled trial, the defendants requested an adjournment because the plaintiff produced a laptop computer containing over 14,000 files the day before trial.

The plaintiff's claim included $1.8 million for past and future income loss, making the newly disclosed work documents highly material.

The court granted the adjournment, finding that trial fairness required the defendants to have an opportunity to inspect the new productions and conduct further examination for discovery.

The defendants were awarded costs thrown away, with the amount to be determined by the trial judge.

The applicant bank sold a property under a power of sale following the mortgagor's default and death.

After satisfying its mortgage and a second mortgage, the bank held surplus funds.

As the deceased's estate had not yet been constituted and multiple parties had potential interests, the bank brought an unopposed application to pay the surplus funds into court.

The court granted the application pursuant to the Trustee Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, allowing the bank to pay the funds into court, less its costs, and extinguishing its liability.

The court issued a Trial Management Endorsement providing procedural directions for an upcoming 11-day virtual trial to be conducted via Zoom and CaseLines due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The endorsement outlined requirements for the electronic trial record, witness management, document uploading, exhibit marking, and the preparation of a Joint Document Book in accordance with appellate guidance.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants for unpaid commissions and wrongful dismissal.

The individual plaintiff initially provided services through his corporation as a dependent contractor before becoming a full-time employee.

The court granted default judgment, awarding the corporate plaintiff unpaid commissions and bonuses in USD.

The court also found the individual plaintiff was a dependent contractor whose prior service counted towards his length of employment, awarding him 6 months' pay in lieu of notice, less mitigation.

A claim for bad faith damages was dismissed.

During a trial regarding allegedly false warranty claims, the court made two evidentiary rulings.

First, the court found the plaintiffs breached the rule in Browne v. Dunn by failing to cross-examine a defence witness on evidence later adduced from customer witnesses to impeach him.

The court admitted the evidence but reserved the right to draw an adverse inference or adjust its weight.

Second, the court granted the defendants leave under Rule 53.08 to use an undisclosed document to cross-examine a plaintiff's witness, on the condition that the defendants recall their own witness to be cross-examined on the document.

The moving party defendant, a co-owner of a residential property, sought an order for partition and sale under the Partition Act.

The responding parties opposed the motion, arguing the moving party had already extracted her share of equity through a unilateral mortgage refinancing and had unclean hands.

The court granted the motion, finding that the discretion to refuse partition and sale is strictly limited to cases of malice, oppression, or vexatious intent, which were not established here.

The court ordered the property sold and the net proceeds paid into court pending the resolution of the underlying accounting action.

During a trial, the defendants sought an order under Rule 53.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to tender the evidence of a software company representative by affidavit.

The plaintiffs objected, arguing the evidence was contentious and required cross-examination.

The court dismissed the request, finding the defendants failed to establish the evidence was uncontentious and noting the witness was available to testify virtually.

During a trial, the plaintiffs sought to admit an Industry Canada document into evidence under the public documents exception to the hearsay rule.

The defendants objected, arguing the document did not fit the statutory or common law categories of public documents.

The court dismissed the objection and admitted the document, finding it satisfied the four-part test for the public documents exception as it was prepared by a public official discharging a public duty, intended as a permanent record, and available for public inspection.

The plaintiff employee was terminated without cause and the employer refused to pay her contractual two weeks' severance unless she signed a full and final release.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal, arguing the employer repudiated the employment contract and that the termination provisions violated the Employment Standards Act.

The court found that the employer's demand for a release in exchange for contractual entitlements constituted a repudiation of the contract, entitling the plaintiff to common law reasonable notice.

The court awarded 6 months' notice, totaling $16,807.52 in damages.

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing for default judgment against the defendants for breach of three equipment leases.

The defendants failed to file a statement of defence and were noted in default.

The court found the plaintiff established its entitlement to judgment based on the defendants' default in payments and breach of the leases.

Default judgment was granted for the outstanding amounts, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the contractual rate of 24%, and substantial indemnity costs.

The defendant requested an order dismissing the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The defendant cited 21 other legal proceedings initiated by the plaintiff.

The court declined to dismiss the action, finding that the abusive nature of the proceeding was not apparent on the face of the pleading.

The court noted that a multiplicity of proceedings alone is not a basis for dismissal under Rule 2.1 without an apparent attempt to re-litigate determined issues.

The defendant requested an order dismissing the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The defendant pointed to 21 other legal proceedings initiated by the plaintiff.

The court declined to dismiss the action, finding that the abusive nature of the proceeding was not apparent on the face of the pleading and that a multiplicity of proceedings alone is not a basis for dismissal under Rule 2.1.

Following a trial regarding reciprocal easements and commercial redevelopment, the court determined costs.

The plaintiffs achieved divided success, obtaining some but not all of the declaratory relief sought and failing to obtain a permanent injunction.

The court declined to make a distributive costs order, instead reducing the plaintiffs' partial indemnity costs by 50% to reflect their divided success and over-staffing, awarding them $638,804.86 against the Market Village defendants.

The Kennedy defendants were awarded $70,000 in partial indemnity costs against the plaintiffs.

The defendant appealed a Master's decision setting aside a Registrar's order that dismissed the plaintiff's defamation action for delay.

The defendant argued the Master erred by not upholding the dismissal after finding the plaintiff deliberately delayed the action, and by reversing the burden of proof regarding prejudice.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Master applied the correct contextual approach to the Reid factors and reasonably concluded that the interests of justice favoured deciding the case on its merits, given the lack of significant prejudice to the defendant.

In a case management conference, the plaintiff requested an amendment to the Discovery Timetable to allow more time to deliver written questions arising from the recent production of approximately 4,000 additional documents by the defendant.

The defendants did not dispute the need for additional time but questioned the structure of the questioning stages.

The court granted the amendment, extending the deadlines for the delivery of follow-up written questions and answers, and maintained the remainder of the timetable.