Alexander B. Paul

A vacant land condominium corporation sought damages and disgorgement of profits against its former directors and various defendants, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the release of easements burdening adjacent land.

The plaintiff claimed the directors received secret benefits in exchange for facilitating the release of easements valued at approximately $31.5 million.

The court found that the corporation was contractually obligated to release the easements pursuant to easement release provisions in registered agreements, and that the plaintiff failed to prove the directors received secret benefits or breached their fiduciary duties.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and the counterclaim.

The accused, charged with being an accessory to murder after the fact, brought a bail application under section 522(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused had shown cause why her detention was not justified under subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

A Form 11 release order was issued with conditions, including a $2000 promise to pay, residing at a specific address, and no contact with named individuals.

The matter was adjourned to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The plaintiffs, Steven and Carolyn Nadeau, brought an action for damages after Steven Nadeau was injured by an automatic garage door.

They sued the building owner (Ontario), property manager (CBRE), door installer (Wilcox), garage manager (SP Plus), and maintenance contractor (Haws).

Wilcox, SP Plus, and Haws each brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the action against them.

The court granted Wilcox's motion, finding no duty of care owed to the plaintiffs and no basis for cross-claims, deeming it a rare case suitable for partial summary judgment.

The motions brought by SP Plus and Haws were dismissed, as genuine issues requiring a trial remained regarding their respective duties of care and, for SP Plus, ambiguities in contractual indemnification clauses.

The appellant was jogging on an indoor track at McMaster University when struck from behind by a member of the Flying Angels Running Club, suffering a serious shoulder injury requiring surgery.

At trial, no negligence was found against McMaster University or the runner who struck the appellant.

However, the Flying Angels Running Club and its coach were found negligent.

The jury determined the appellant was 40 percent contributorily negligent for failing to move to a different lane when asked to do so.

The appellant received approximately $80,000 net in damages including prejudgment interest.

On appeal, the appellant challenged four evidentiary rulings by the trial judge: the characterization of lane one as the "default lane" in the jury charge, the exclusion of an email from a track employee, the exclusion of a letter to the Ontario Ministry of Labour, and the exclusion of insurance reimbursement charts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.

The Moving Defendants brought a motion to compel a non-party insurer, Co-Operators General Insurance Company, to produce the complete insurance policy and investigative materials related to a bankrupt co-defendant, Dino & Chris Electric LTD (DCE).

The court dismissed the motion for the insurance policy, finding it not relevant to the material issues in the main action and that fairness considerations favored the non-party.

However, the court granted the motion for investigative materials, ordering Co-Operators to produce a list of documents and copies for judicial inspection to determine their relevance and fairness for disclosure to the Moving Defendants.

The plaintiff homeowners sued the defendants after their house was damaged by fire.

The defendants, Andrew Grant Design Group Ltd. and Inspired Landscape Solutions Inc. (and Kevin MacDonald), brought motions to amend their third-party claims to substitute 'John Doe Gas Fitter' with Ross Hammond and 'John Doe Manufacturer' with Sunstone Metal Products L.L.C., and to delete Fire Magic Grills.

Sunstone opposed on limitation period grounds.

The court applied discoverability principles under the Limitations Act, 2002, finding that the moving parties exercised due diligence in identifying the correct third parties.

The motions were granted, allowing the amendments, with leave for Sunstone and Hammond to plead a limitations defence at trial.

The respondents brought motions for an order requiring the appellant to post security for costs on appeal.

The appellant was injured while running on an indoor track at McMaster University and sued for negligence and breach of statutory duty.

Following a three-week trial, the jury found the Flying Angels Running Club and George Kerr 60% liable, with the appellant 40% contributorily negligent.

The appellant was awarded damages of $101,885 but was required to pay substantial costs to the defendants.

The motions judge granted the security for costs motions, finding that although the appeal was not frivolous and vexatious, security was warranted under the applicable rules considering the appellant's non-resident status, the weak merits of the appeal, and the appellant's demonstrated financial capacity to post security.

This endorsement determined the costs arising from a dismissed summary judgment motion brought by Liberty Development Corporation and several derivative motions.

The plaintiff, York Regional Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1206 (YRSCC No. 1206), was awarded $60,000 in partial indemnity costs for successfully resisting Liberty's summary judgment motion.

Conversely, Liberty Development Corporation was awarded a total of $34,261.12 in partial indemnity costs for various motions initiated by YRSCC No. 1206, including motions to stay, a pleading amendment motion, and an expert report motion.

The court dismissed YRSCC No. 1206's claim for restitution of previously awarded costs and found no basis for costs against or in favour of Darcon Inc. The decision applied the "costs follow the event" principle but declined to award substantial indemnity costs, noting that the parties' matching settlement offers regarding the withdrawal of motions effectively neutralized each other.