Adriana Doyle

The moving parties sought relief from automatic striking of their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim after delivering a response for particulars two days late under a prior consent order.

The responding party opposed and pursued default judgment based on strict non-compliance.

Applying Rules 3.02 and 1.04, and guided by appellate authority on extensions and merits-based adjudication, the court granted a retroactive extension and reinstated the pleading.

The court characterized the breach as minor, found no prejudice to the responding party, and held the interests of justice favoured determination on the merits.

No costs were awarded.

The respondent, having been successful in the main application for judicial review, sought partial indemnity costs of $45,000.

The applicant argued that no costs should be awarded due to the public interest exception, or alternatively, that the amount claimed was excessive.

The Divisional Court rejected the public interest argument, noting the applicant had a personal financial motivation for the proceeding.

However, the court agreed the claimed amount was excessive for a half-day hearing on a narrow issue, and fixed costs at $10,000 all-inclusive.

This is a costs decision following the court's grant of leave to commence a derivative action under s. 246 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The applicant sought to bring proceedings on behalf of two corporations against their directors for breach of fiduciary duties and duties of care relating to excessive compensation.

The applicant sought costs against the respondent directors on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondents argued for no costs or significantly reduced costs, citing divided success and adverse findings regarding the applicant's own conduct.

The court reserved costs to the trial judge, finding that the trial judge would be best positioned to assess costs of the entirety of the proceedings and the parties' conduct.

This is a costs decision following a summary judgment award to the plaintiff for $106,012.93 against the defendants for failure to complete the purchase of a property pursuant to an agreement of purchase and sale dated August 16, 2023.

The defendants' counterclaims for negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and loss of opportunity were dismissed.

The court awarded costs of $10,000 to the plaintiff, reducing the requested amount of $29,777.87 due to the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct in misinterpreting a final amendment to the agreement and demanding removal of the property listing from MLS for approximately two months, which was central to the litigation.

The Crown applied under section 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code for an order remanding the offender for an assessment by an expert for use as evidence in an application to have the offender declared a dangerous offender or long-term offender.

The offender had been convicted of two counts of sexual assault against his biological daughters.

The court found that the Crown met the low threshold of demonstrating reasonable grounds to believe the offender might be found to be a dangerous offender or long-term offender, based on the offender's extensive criminal record spanning over three decades, pattern of repetitive sexual behaviour, institutional infractions including sexual predatory behaviour, and expert assessments indicating high risk of reoffending.

The court granted the application and ordered the assessment.

The applicant sought leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of two closely held companies (Cen-Ta Real Estate Ltd. and Plum Financial Group Inc.) against the companies' directors for breach of fiduciary duties and duties of care.

The applicant alleged that the directors awarded themselves and their personal companies unreasonable and unfair compensation despite the companies' declining revenues and financial losses.

The respondent directors opposed the application, arguing the applicant failed to satisfy the mandatory statutory preconditions under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, specifically that the applicant was not acting in good faith and the proposed action was not in the interests of the corporations.

The court granted leave for the derivative action, finding that the applicant satisfied all requirements under the Act, was acting in good faith, and the action was in the interests of the corporations.

The court ordered that the applicant and corporations share legal costs equally.

A developer sought summary judgment for damages of $106,012.93 against purchasers who failed to complete the purchase of a property in a new development.

The purchasers had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with a closing date of August 16, 2023.

Amendments to the agreement permitted the purchasers to assign the agreement and to list the property for sale on MLS and other platforms.

The developer demanded removal of the MLS listing in January 2023, claiming the amendment permitting such listing was signed in error.

The purchasers removed the listing under protest and later claimed the developer's conduct constituted a repudiatory breach entitling them to rescind the contract.

The court found no repudiation or misrepresentation, determined the final amendment was valid and enforceable, and awarded judgment to the developer for the loss on resale plus incidental costs.

A commercial tenant operating a pizza restaurant sought relief from forfeiture after failing to provide written notice to renew its lease within the required eight-month notice period.

The tenant had operated the business for 12 years, invested approximately $100,000 in renovations, and expressed its intention to renew to the landlord's property manager.

The tenant missed the December 31, 2024 deadline due to illness and inadvertence, but immediately sought to renew upon being notified of the missed deadline in February 2025.

The landlord had subsequently leased the premises to a neighbouring business.

The court granted relief from forfeiture, finding that the tenant exercised due diligence, acted in good faith, and that the circumstances warranted equitable intervention.

The applicant brought a motion seeking consolidation of two oppression remedy applications (2019 and 2023), an order compelling respondents to comply with court orders for audited financial statements, reimbursement of his deposit, a timetable for remaining steps, and written submissions on oppression and receiver appointment.

The court ordered the applications be heard together rather than consolidated, to preserve the respondents' limitation period defences.

The court compelled the respondents to provide answers to the applicant's queries regarding anomalies in the draft financial statements within 30 days and ordered completion of audited financial statements within specified timeframes.

The applicant was ordered to confirm his shareholder loan account within 30 days to allow completion of the audit.

In this family law dispute, the court was asked to determine the appropriate secondary school for the parties' 12-year-old child.

The father, who held decision-making authority over educational matters under a prior court order, sought to enroll the child in an athletic program at Louis-Riel public secondary school, while the mother preferred a techno-design program at Mer Bleue Catholic secondary school.

The court found the father's choice to be reasonable and aligned with the child's athletic strengths.

Consequently, the court ordered that the child attend Louis-Riel secondary school and appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to investigate and report on the child's circumstances due to high parental conflict.

The accused pleaded guilty to being unlawfully in a dwelling-house contrary to s. 349 of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved the accused forcing her way into the home of an elderly couple, demanding keys, and physically assaulting both victims, causing injuries requiring hospitalization.

The Crown sought a 12-month conditional sentence order followed by probation and restitution.

The defence sought a conditional discharge, emphasizing the accused's first-time offender status, guilty plea, remorse, and employment in the educational system.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with conditions including 18 months of probation, 100 hours of community service, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a non-contact order, and restitution of $90.00.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference with a person under 16 years of age and breach of a release order.

The victim was 14 years old at the time of the offence.

The Crown sought 3.5 to 4 years imprisonment; the defence sought time served plus probation.

The court imposed a global sentence of three years imprisonment, considering aggravating factors including forced penetrative sexual assault and the victim's age, mitigating factors including guilty plea and no adult criminal record, collateral consequences of incarceration, and Duncan credit for harsh prison conditions.

The court also imposed ancillary orders including SOIRA registration for 20 years, DNA sample, weapons prohibition, non-contact order, and section 161 prohibitions with limited exception for supervised contact with cousin.

The accused brought Charter applications challenging the lawfulness of General Warrants and Search Warrants executed in a drug trafficking investigation.

The General Warrants, issued for covert surveillance of two residential locations, failed to include the statutorily required notice provision under section 487.01(5.1) of the Criminal Code, constituting a facial invalidity and breach of section 8 of the Charter.

The Search Warrants were subsequently obtained using information derived from the facially invalid General Warrants.

The court found that while the General Warrants were facially invalid due to the missing notice provision, the Search Warrants could otherwise have been issued based on the totality of the evidence, including amplified tracking data.

The court also addressed allegations of arbitrary detention and breach of the right to counsel.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the Charter applications, finding that despite the breaches, the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under the section 24(2) analysis.

The applicants, neighbours of the respondent, sought a mandatory injunction requiring the removal of a curb wall constructed of concrete blocks along the respondent’s driveway, alleging it constituted a private nuisance and violated City of Ottawa by-laws.

The court found that the respondent was not in breach of the relevant by-laws and that the applicants failed to prove substantial and unreasonable interference with their property.

The application was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.

The court dismissed a motion by Ottawa Police Services and Keith Patrick to strike Tanya Locke’s claim for misfeasance in public office.

The defendants argued the claim was statute-barred, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and was an abuse of process due to a prior dismissed action.

The court found the claim could fall within the exception in section 16 of the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the plaintiff had pleaded the elements of misfeasance in public office.

The court held the claim was not statute-barred, disclosed a reasonable cause of action, and was not an abuse of process.

This decision concerns a Gardiner hearing following S.M.'s guilty plea to two counts of sexual assault against his biological daughters, V.M. and M.G. The court reviews the evidence to determine aggravating facts, including the number, nature, and circumstances of the assaults.

The decision addresses the credibility and reliability of the complainants, the timing and location of the assaults, and the extent of family knowledge and disclosure.

The court finds the core details of the assaults proven beyond a reasonable doubt, despite some inconsistencies in peripheral details, and concludes that the complainants did not collude or exaggerate their testimony.

The court considered whether the defence could cross-examine Constable Ali Sabeeh on prior negative judicial findings made against him in an unrelated case (R. v. Uniat) to challenge his credibility and establish a pattern of Charter breaches.

The court reviewed the legal framework for admitting such evidence, including the need for a high degree of similarity and a proper evidentiary foundation.

Ultimately, the court found that the prior findings in Uniat were of marginal relevance and that their prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value.

The application to cross-examine on those findings was dismissed, but the defence was permitted to explore the officer’s training on Charter issues.

The decision addresses two motions in a commercial real estate dispute: a motion to strike claims against individual condominium directors, and a motion for production of documents.

The court struck the claims against the directors but granted the plaintiff leave to amend, finding the pleadings did not sufficiently distinguish the directors’ conduct from that of the corporation.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s production motion, holding that privilege over communications with counsel and the property manager was not waived by the addition of the property manager as a third party.

The ruling clarifies the high threshold for personal liability of condominium directors and the scope of privilege in multi-party litigation.

The court sentenced J.P. Dominic Mignac for aggravated assault and resisting arrest following a stabbing incident at a Burger King.

The court found the case fell within the mid-range of sentencing for aggravated assault, considering factors such as provocation, lack of criminal record, remorse, and rehabilitation prospects.

The sentence imposed was two years less a day to be served as a conditional sentence with house arrest, followed by three years' probation, and included ancillary orders such as a DNA order and weapons prohibition.

The decision reviews the applicable sentencing principles and case law, emphasizing the balance between denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The applicant appealed and sought judicial review of Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions dismissing her claims for income replacement benefits and medical expenses, and ordering the destruction of internal tribunal documents she submitted as evidence of institutional bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's determination that the insurer's examination notices complied with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's orders striking the applicant's reply evidence and directing the destruction and non-dissemination of internal documents, concluding that the Tribunal reasonably exercised its jurisdiction to control its process and properly applied the doctrines of solicitor-client privilege and deliberative secrecy.