Alexa Jarvis

The appellant landlord appealed the dismissal of its application for a declaration that a long-term commercial lease had expired and for ancillary relief on the basis that the tenant was overholding.

The appellant argued that the tenant's failure to obtain timely Planning Act approval brought the lease to an end and precluded further renewals.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's analysis, holding that the tenant had continued to take appropriate steps to obtain the necessary approval and that the renewals were permitted subject to such approval.

Fresh evidence motions were dismissed as irrelevant to the appeal outcome, and leave to appeal the $225,000 costs award was denied.

The decision concerns a dispute over the renewal of a commercial lease between McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited and North Elgin Centre Inc. McDonald’s sought to exercise its option to renew the lease for two additional 10-year terms, while North Elgin opposed the renewal, seeking to terminate the lease and redevelop the property.

The court reviewed the lease provisions, the requirements of the Planning Act, and the parties’ conduct, ultimately finding that the lease had been validly renewed for both the first and second renewal terms, subject to municipal consent.

The court dismissed North Elgin’s application to terminate the lease and granted McDonald’s a declaration of renewal, ordering North Elgin to refrain from further communications that would undermine the consent process.

The decision concerns a dispute over the renewal of a commercial lease between McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited and North Elgin Centre Inc. McDonald’s sought to exercise its option to renew the lease for two additional 10-year terms, while North Elgin opposed the renewal, seeking to terminate the lease and redevelop the property.

The court reviewed the lease provisions, the requirements of the Planning Act, and the parties’ conduct, ultimately finding that the lease had been validly renewed for both the first and second renewal terms, subject to municipal consent.

The court dismissed North Elgin’s application to terminate the lease and granted McDonald’s a declaration of renewal, ordering North Elgin to refrain from further communications that would undermine the consent process.

The applicant, HomeLife/Cimerman Real Estate Ltd., sought a declaration that the respondent, Liberty Market Tower Inc., was obliged to pay it a commission in relation to the sale of a condominium unit.

The dispute centered on confusion over which real estate agent represented the purchaser, Mehdi Ajorlou.

The court found that Liberty had a binding agreement with Ajorlou to change the agent of record from Nejad to Ahmadipour, and a binding agreement with HomeLife to register Ahmadipour as the agent of record.

The court ordered Liberty to pay the commission to HomeLife and awarded costs.

This decision addresses an evidentiary dispute during a trial regarding the admissibility of post-assessment medical reports through a defendant fact witness, Dr. McPherson.

The defendants sought to introduce reports created after Dr. McPherson's last assessment of the plaintiff, Jeremy Veran, to demonstrate improvement in symptoms.

The plaintiffs objected, arguing Dr. McPherson had not seen these documents and was not an expert witness.

The court ruled that documents not seen or received by Dr. McPherson, and not directly relevant to his care of the plaintiff, could not be introduced through him as a fact witness, even if they were part of the joint book of documents.

The defendants brought a motion to address two issues: the admissibility of opinions in two plaintiff expert reports (Miyanji and Levin) and the admissibility of evidence from five lay witnesses.

The court ruled that portions of the Miyanji and Levin reports that did not respond to specific "Defence Expert Reports" or introduced new standard of care issues were inadmissible due to late service and lack of reasonable explanation.

The motion to exclude the lay witnesses was dismissed as premature, with the court stating that the admissibility of their evidence, particularly any opinion evidence, should be assessed at the time it is tendered at trial.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, Shaun Rootenberg, under Rule 56.01(1)(d)-(f) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 18(1) of the Libel and Slander Act.

The motion was dismissed because the defendants failed to meet the threshold evidentiary requirements.

Specifically, their supporting affidavits did not adequately show the nature of the action and defence as required by the Libel and Slander Act, nor did they provide sufficient evidence to establish that the plaintiff's action was frivolous or vexatious.

Although the plaintiff conceded insufficient assets, the defendants failed on other necessary criteria.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking several orders before trial, including dismissal of claims against certain defendants, leave to amend their statement of claim, preliminary determination of jury questions, and exclusion of expert evidence.

The court granted the dismissal of claims against the "Released Defendants" without costs, as it was previously agreed upon.

Leave was granted to file a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, as the proposed amendments were extensive and did not remove admissions.

The court also determined the format for jury questions, largely adopting the plaintiffs' approach for damages and requiring explanations for answers, emphasizing standard of care and "but for" causation.

The issue of expert evidence was adjourned to a later date.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to preclude the defendants from introducing evidence from fifteen expert reports served late in a medical malpractice action.

The court considered the admissibility under Rule 53.08, assessing whether there was a reasonable explanation for the late service and if granting leave would cause irreparable prejudice or undue delay.

The court allowed some reports as supplementary or responding reports, finding a general reasonable explanation for delay due to discovery issues and prior party understanding.

However, it excluded a vocational report that introduced new scenarios without prior notice and a neuropsychological report, reiterating a previous ruling that no neuropsychological impairment issue was pleaded or supported by evidence, and its introduction would cause significant prejudice and necessitate trial adjournment.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to find Shayna Dallas and 2697909 Ontario Inc. in contempt of court for failing to attend an examination in aid of execution and for failing to produce specified documents.

The court found that the contempt for non-attendance was purged by the subsequent payment of costs.

Regarding document production, despite skepticism about the completeness of disclosure, the court determined that the Plaintiffs did not meet the high burden of proving a "deliberate and flagrant breach" beyond a reasonable doubt.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to renewal on new evidence.

This motion concerned applications by the Dallas Defendants and Mangal Defendants to withdraw deemed admissions arising from their failure to respond to a Request to Admit from the Plaintiffs.

The court applied a three-part test, considering whether the proposed amendments raised a triable issue, if the admission was inadvertent, and if withdrawal would cause uncompensable prejudice.

The court found that the moving parties failed to establish a triable issue regarding property valuation, notice of power of sale, or Ms. Dallas's authority.

While counsel claimed inadvertence, the delay in bringing the motion after being alerted to the issue was unexplained.

Significant prejudice to the plaintiffs, including delays and costs, was identified.

The court also noted the moving parties' inconsistent positions on property valuation in a related proceeding.

Considering all circumstances, the motions to withdraw deemed admissions were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiffs to post security for costs under Rule 56.01.

The court found that the plaintiff Alexandra Tang was not ordinarily resident in Ontario and that the plaintiffs (including the corporations) lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to cover a potential cost award.

However, the motion was dismissed due to the defendants' obstructive conduct during cross-examinations regarding the merits of the claim, their "hardball litigation" tactics, and significant delay in bringing the motion.

The court emphasized that the merits of the claim are relevant, especially when impecuniosity is not alleged, and that the defendants' conduct prejudiced the plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate their case's merits.

This is an appeal in a class action concerning an infectious disease outbreak at a pain care centre.

The appellant, Dr. Stephen James, challenged the trial judge's findings of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and the application of the limitation period, as well as the award of punitive damages and costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's conclusions that Dr. James breached the standard of care by failing to consistently use aseptic technique and to report/investigate infections.

The court affirmed the use of statistical evidence to establish a rebuttable presumption of causation for the class, and found no error in the breach of fiduciary duty or the appropriateness of punitive damages.

The appeal on costs, including the order for Dr. James to pay the successful co-defendant nurses' costs, was also dismissed.

The Monitor brought a motion within a CCAA proceeding seeking an order directing Stelco to complete a land severance and convey a parcel of land (the Reconveyance Parcel) to LandCo's nominee pursuant to a Reconveyance Agreement.

Stelco opposed, arguing that LandCo missed timelines in the agreement, entitling Stelco to purchase the land instead, and brought a cross-motion.

The dispute arose after Stelco learned the land was to be sold to a developer for a large residential community near its steel plant.

The court found that Stelco breached the Reconveyance Agreement, as the conditions triggering its right to purchase had not occurred.

The court held that LandCo could waive the requirement for environmental consent and ordered specific performance, requiring Stelco to complete the severance and transfer the land.

This appeal addresses issues of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens in a complex international insurance coverage dispute.

Vale and RSA initiated actions in Ontario seeking coverage for environmental liabilities, primarily in Ontario, after Travelers commenced a similar action in New York.

The motion judge largely found Ontario had jurisdiction and was not forum non conveniens, except for North River.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurers' appeals, affirming Ontario's jurisdiction over them, and allowed Vale's appeal, finding Ontario also had jurisdiction over North River.

The court emphasized that a comprehensive general liability insurer underwriting Ontario risks connects itself to Ontario for jurisdictional purposes, and that the "first-to-file" rule does not automatically determine the appropriate forum.

Supplemental reasons issued to correct an error in the court's previous decision (2022 ONSC 12).

The court corrected paragraph 4 to clarify that Lloyds should not have been listed as a party challenging the forum of the action.

Vale Canada and its primary insurer, RSA, brought actions against numerous excess insurers for coverage of environmental remediation costs incurred primarily in Ontario.

Several foreign excess insurers brought motions challenging the jurisdiction of the Ontario court or seeking a stay based on forum non conveniens in favour of an action in New York.

The court found it had jurisdiction over all moving insurers except North River Insurance Company, concluding that the insurers were 'carrying on business' in Ontario by participating in a global insurance program for an Ontario-based company.

The court declined to stay the actions for forum non conveniens, finding Ontario to be the 'centre of gravity' for the dispute.

Claims by Vale Canada against two UK insurers were stayed pending arbitration.

The plaintiff, Tassone, brought an action against 407 ETR and its lawyers.

While the action against 407 ETR had settled, Tassone's counsel later subpoenaed 407 ETR's legal department representatives in the ongoing action against the lawyers, alleging unlawful conduct and seeking to breach solicitor-client privilege. 407 ETR successfully moved to quash these subpoenas.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion.

The court found that a prior mutual release did not bar 407 ETR's claim for costs related to the subpoena motion.

The costs claimed by 407 ETR were deemed reasonable, with a minor deduction for duplicate student time.

Due to Tassone's unsubstantiated allegations of unlawful conduct and aggressive, unjustified attempts to breach privilege, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs to 407 ETR.