Adriana Doyle

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff, a self-represented former patron of the defendant's pub, sought damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering, defamation, trespass, denial of service, and economic loss.

The court struck the Statement of Claim as it failed to plead sufficient material facts for the torts alleged.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend the claims for economic loss, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and defamation, but struck the claims for trespass and refusal to serve without leave, as they amounted to claims of discrimination properly falling under the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking forfeiture of a $150,000 deposit after the defendant purchaser failed to close a commercial real estate transaction.

The defendant argued it could not obtain financing because the plaintiff failed to disclose that a major tenant, representing 30% of the property's income, had terminated its lease before the defendant waived the sole inspection condition.

The Court found that although the contract did not require disclosure and the principle of caveat emptor applied, the plaintiff breached the duty of honest performance by knowingly remaining silent about the lease termination to allow the condition to be waived.

The Court granted summary judgment in favour of the defendant, ordering the deposit returned.

Following a decision on two related oppression applications where the court found only one act of oppression by the respondent and declined to order a receiver, the parties submitted written costs submissions.

The court determined the respondents were more successful overall.

The court ordered costs of $50,000 payable to the individual respondent and $50,000 to the corporate respondents.

The self-represented appellant sought an extension of time to appeal his convictions for tax offences, filing his application more than three years after the expiry of the appeal period.

He argued his guilty pleas were uninformed because he was unaware the Canada Revenue Agency would publish his convictions on its website.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed period, did not reasonably explain the delay, and failed to show the proposed appeal had merit or that the interests of justice favoured an extension.

The applicant, a minority shareholder and former director, brought applications alleging oppression and constructive dismissal against the majority shareholder and the respondent corporations.

The court found the constructive dismissal claim was statute-barred and lacked merit, as the change in compensation method did not constitute a substantial breach of an essential term.

While most oppression claims regarding shareholder loans and business decisions were dismissed under the business judgment rule, the court found the majority shareholder unfairly disregarded the applicant's rights by failing to provide timely access to financial information.

The court declined to appoint a receiver-manager, instead ordering the sale of the corporation's primary real estate asset and an accounting of the proceeds.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application to amend the articles of incorporation of the National Police Federation, the respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought his own costs or that each party bear their own costs, arguing the matter raised novel points of law and access to justice issues.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $20,000, finding that the applicant did not act in bad faith and that there was a dearth of jurisprudence on the interpretation of the relevant Act.

The defendant insurer brought a motion under s. 128 of the Insurance Act to compel the plaintiff insureds to participate in the statutory appraisal process following a fire loss.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing the matter should proceed to summary judgment due to a fundamental disagreement over the valuation date and allegations of bad faith.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the appraisal process is limited to valuation and cannot resolve broader legal disputes such as policy interpretation regarding the correct valuation date.

The plaintiffs were ordered to submit a sworn proof of loss.

The applicant, a member of the respondent not-for-profit corporation, submitted a proposal to amend the corporation's articles to make the decisions of the Nominations and Elections Committee final and binding on the board of directors.

The respondent refused to include the proposal in the notice of its annual general meeting.

The applicant brought an application to compel its inclusion.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the proposal was illegal because it sought to restrict the core management powers of the directors.

Under the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, such a restriction can only be achieved through a unanimous member agreement, not a special resolution to amend the articles.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a neuropsychological assessment and for leave to serve the resulting expert report after the deadline set by Rule 53.03.

The defendant's new counsel argued the delay was due to assuming carriage of the file late in the litigation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no reasonable explanation for the two-year delay by the defendant's previous counsel in arranging the assessment.

The court also noted that allowing a late report on the eve of trial would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiff and likely result in a lengthy trial adjournment.

The moving party brought a motion for directions in the context of competing applications for the passing of accounts, seeking extensive additional financial disclosure from the responding party regarding their late parents' real estate and financial assets.

The responding party opposed, arguing the requests were disproportionate and that the moving party was delaying court-ordered mediation.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering specific disclosure regarding a $300,000 line of credit and cooperation on the sale of a foreign property, but denied the broader requests as disproportionate and directed the parties to proceed to mediation and set a date for the passing of accounts.

Following a guilty plea, the offender brought an application to strike the pre-sentence report (PSR) and order a new one.

The court found the PSR contained multiple deficiencies, including reliance on unproven police allegations, inappropriate contact with the victim's family, failure to gather collateral information, and failure to accommodate the offender's Parkinson's disease.

The court concluded the PSR did not meet the standard of fairness required by s. 721 of the Criminal Code.

The application was granted, the PSR was struck, and a new report by a different probation officer was ordered.

The plaintiff brought a motion to abridge the time for service of a cost of care expert report, which was served 34 days before the pre-trial conference instead of the required 90 days under Rule 53.03(1).

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing there was no reasonable explanation for the delay and that admitting the report would cause prejudice.

The court granted the motion, finding that plaintiff's counsel provided a reasonable explanation of inadvertence due to a busy practice, and that the defendant would not suffer non-compensable prejudice given the trial was still 14 months away when the report was served.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault by choking, aggravated assault, and breach of probation arising from a prolonged episode of intimate partner violence, but contested unlawful confinement and uttering a death threat.

After assessing the complainant’s credibility and reliability, the court found her core account of repeated cyclical assaults, restraint inside the apartment, and two episodes of choking to be credible and materially corroborated by the physical scene and injuries.

The court held that the Crown proved unlawful confinement beyond a reasonable doubt because the complainant was prevented from leaving by force, intimidation, and surveillance.

The court acquitted on the uttering-threat count, finding the accused’s statements expressed indifference to the complainant’s suffering rather than an objectively ascertainable threat to kill.

On the Gardiner hearing, the court also found the disputed aggravating facts proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court previously dismissed the appellants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order finding that their occupation of a cottage at the respondents' campground was a seasonal lease exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act.

In this costs endorsement, the respondents sought $8,308.89 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the appellants argued for no costs or costs in their favour.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01, the court awarded the respondents costs fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis, noting the appellants' reasonable offer to settle costs.

The applicant sought to recognize an Israeli guardianship order declaring the respondent incapable of managing property and appointing the applicant as his guardian.

The respondent, who resides in Israel, holds personal property in Ontario.

The court found that while the Substitute Decisions Act does not list Israel as a prescribed jurisdiction for resealing, the order could be recognized under common law principles.

The court dispensed with service on the respondent and involvement of the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, finding a real and substantial connection to Israel and no violation of natural justice or public policy.

The application was granted.

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that their occupation of a cottage on the respondents' campground was exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act under section 5(a).

The appellants argued that because they paid an annual fee and owned a permanent structure on the lot, the lease was not seasonal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's finding that the lease was seasonal because the respondents prohibited access and shut off utilities outside the permitted open season, making year-round occupation impossible.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent dealership $15,000 in liquidated damages for breaching a non-export agreement (NEA) attached to a vehicle bill of sale.

The Divisional Court dismissed several grounds of appeal relating to procedural fairness, bias, and evidentiary rulings.

However, the appeal was allowed on the basis that the NEA violated the Consumer Protection Act.

The court found that the NEA's waiver of rights, which held the consumer strictly liable for the vehicle's export even if stolen, constituted an unfair practice.

The trial judgment was set aside and the action dismissed.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of his five-year-old daughter, who was unilaterally removed from Morocco to Canada by the respondent mother.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Morocco and that the father was exercising his custody rights as a legal guardian under Moroccan law.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the return, arguing exceptions under the Hague Convention, including grave risk of harm, the child's objections, and human rights violations.

The court dismissed the exceptions, finding that Moroccan family law prioritizes the best interests of the child and that the mother's allegations of abuse did not meet the high threshold of grave risk.

The court ordered the child's return to Morocco and awarded costs to the father.

In a multi-count criminal trial arising from an alleged drug-debt confrontation, the court applied reasonable-doubt principles, credibility and reliability analysis, Vetrovec caution, and Villaroman circumstantial-evidence requirements.

The prosecution proved several breach counts, including counts to which the accused had pleaded guilty, and established an additional probation breach tied to keeping the peace and being of good behaviour.

The prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed or used a firearm, threatened death, committed assault with a weapon, or committed the remaining firearm-related and related indictable offences.

The court found key inculpatory witness evidence unreliable and concluded competing reasonable inferences remained available on the circumstantial record.

Convictions were entered on five counts, with all other counts dismissed and two counts withdrawn.

The applicant brought an application seeking a declaration of sole ownership of a property purchased jointly with the respondent, his former common-law partner, arguing a resulting trust.

The respondent opposed, claiming unjust enrichment and a joint family venture, and requested the matter be transferred to Family Court.

The Superior Court of Justice declined to make findings of fact and transferred the proceeding to Family Court, noting that under section 21.8(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, claims for unjust enrichment between persons who have cohabited fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court.