Alex Robineau

The applicant sought specific performance of a share transfer agreement to acquire 25% of the shares in two privately held corporations from the respondent.

The respondent opposed, arguing the agreement was unclear, unconscionable, signed under duress, barred by estoppel, and outside the limitation period.

The court utilized its enhanced fact-finding powers to resolve the application without a trial.

The court found the agreement valid, clear, and supported by consideration in the form of significant personal guarantees provided by the applicant's principal.

The court rejected the respondent's defenses and ordered specific performance, finding that the shares were unique and damages would be inadequate.

The court addressed two competing motions arising from overlapping proceedings: an application commenced by 9165-6462 Quebec Inc. in Sudbury seeking enforcement of a Transfer Agreement and declarations regarding share ownership, and an action commenced by the plaintiff in Cochrane seeking declarations that the Transfer Agreement is void and that he remains the owner of shares in the DJB companies.

The plaintiff sought to consolidate the proceedings and transfer them to Cochrane, while 9165 Inc. sought to stay or dismiss the action in favour of the application.

The court found that permitting the action to proceed would constitute an abuse of process and an improper collateral attack on a prior judicial order declining to transfer the application.

The court stayed the action against 9165 Inc. pending resolution of the application and dismissed the consolidation motion without prejudice.

This decision concerns the allocation of costs following a trial in which the plaintiffs, Faulkner Real Estate Ltd. and Judy Faulkner, sought damages for alleged exposure to mould in office space leased from the defendants, Sakto Corporation and Waterford Property Group Ltd. The plaintiffs initially claimed over $6,000,000, later reducing the claim to approximately $3,291,000, but were awarded only $4,000 as a partial rent abatement.

The court found the defendants to be the overwhelmingly successful parties and, after considering the offers to settle and other relevant factors, ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs, Judy Faulkner and her real estate brokerage, brought an action against their landlord and property manager claiming approximately $2.2 million in damages allegedly caused by exposure to toxic mould in their leased office space.

The plaintiffs asserted that water leaks led to mould growth, causing Ms. Faulkner to suffer from cognitive symptoms and leading to the departure of key real estate agents.

The court accepted the evidence of the defendants' occupational medicine expert, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the office air contained harmful mould or that Ms. Faulkner's symptoms were caused by mould exposure.

Consequently, the court dismissed the claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of lease, awarding only $4,000 for a temporary rent reduction due to the inconvenience of a remediation containment area.

The applicant, an Ontario resident, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Quebec and elected to receive statutory accident benefits under Quebec law.

The parties agreed the applicant was entitled to a lump sum indemnity for non-pecuniary damage but disputed the amount.

The adjudicator accepted the opinions of both the applicant's and respondent's orthopaedic experts, finding that the applicant's cervical spine impairment met the criteria for a category two severity rating (4%) under the Quebec Regulation.

Combined with a category two lumbar spine impairment (4%), the overall impairment rating was 8%.

The adjudicator awarded the applicant a further $5,127.66 plus interest, based on the indexed maximum amount of $256,383.00.

The parties settled a motor vehicle accident claim for $9,000 for past loss of income and housekeeping capacity, but could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought over $70,000 in costs and disbursements, while the defendants argued for a maximum of $12,278.31 plus HST based on proportionality.

The court found that the plaintiff's costs should be discounted because she was unsuccessful on her claim for general damages.

The court also declined to award costs for the pursuit of Statutory Accident Benefits, as the defendants received no benefit from them.

Costs were fixed at $42,229.05.

The applicant sought medical benefits for physiotherapy and psychological treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The medical evidence provided either did not support the specific treatments requested or pre-dated the treatment plans significantly.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought an award under s. 10 of Ontario Regulation 664, arguing the respondent unreasonably withheld or delayed payment for medical cannabis expenses.

The respondent had requested additional information, including a proper medical note and specific prescription details, before funding the expenses.

The Tribunal found the respondent's request for information was reasonable and that it did not unreasonably delay or withhold payment, as it paid the expenses within 30 days of receiving the complete medical documentation.

The applicant's claims for an award and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought weekly income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The core dispute centered on when the applicant submitted a completed disability certificate (OCF-3) and whether he met the substantial inability test.

The Tribunal found the OCF-3 was not submitted until April 9, 2018, precluding benefits prior to that date.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a call centre agent.

The application for IRBs, interest, and an award was dismissed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a LAT decision which found that post-accident payments made to the applicant by her mother's corporation were gifts and not deductible from her Income Replacement Benefit (IRB).

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the original adjudicator's written reasons were inadequate and constituted a denial of natural justice.

The adjudicator failed to address major points in issue, incorrectly summarized the parties' positions, and did not set out a reasoning process.

The decision was cancelled and the matter was referred back to the original adjudicator for a written rehearing based on the existing evidentiary record.

The applicant sought a $10,000 death benefit following her father's death in a motor vehicle accident, claiming she was principally dependent on him for financial support.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing she was financially independent.

The Tribunal found that the relevant time period to assess dependency was the seven months prior to the accident, during which the applicant had graduated from university, lived at home, and worked full-time in her field of study.

Applying the 51% rule, the Tribunal concluded the applicant was capable of meeting more than 51% of her financial needs and was therefore not principally dependent on her father.

The application for the death benefit and interest was dismissed.

The insurer appealed an Arbitrator's decision awarding the insured income replacement benefits and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued the Arbitrator failed to apply the 'but for' test for causation, misapprehended evidence, and awarded costs for treatment plans he found unreasonable.

The Director's Delegate dismissed most of the appeal, finding the Arbitrator properly applied the causation test and assessed credibility.

However, the appeal was partially allowed regarding specific treatment plans where the Arbitrator made findings of fact unsupported by evidence.

The insured's cross-appeal for the cost of two surgeries in Florida was dismissed because the treatment plans were not signed by a regulated health professional in Ontario and were submitted after the surgeries had already occurred.

Homeowners retained a septic system installer to install a system in 2010, which was approved by the health unit.

Problems with smell and effluent began in 2011 and persisted through 2013.

The installer repeatedly assured the homeowners he could fix the problem and made several attempts to do so.

In 2015, the health unit condemned the system and issued a compliance order.

The homeowners sued in August 2015.

The trial judge dismissed the action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, finding the claim was discovered by spring 2013.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision.

The Court of Appeal reversed, finding the trial judge failed to properly analyze section 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act regarding when a proceeding would be an appropriate remedy.

The court held that the homeowners reasonably relied on the installer's superior knowledge and expertise, and a proceeding was not appropriate until the installer's remedial efforts ceased in winter 2014.

The action was therefore within the two-year limitation period.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal and the defendant Van Dusen's cross-appeal, the successful defendants sought their costs.

Van Dusen sought costs on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle, while the Health Unit sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded Van Dusen $5,125.00, reflecting partial indemnity costs up to the date of his offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The Health Unit was awarded $4,237.52 on a partial indemnity basis, with the court reducing both defendants' claimed amounts to reflect a fair and reasonable award.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement and medical benefits from her insurer.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing that the applicant's ongoing impairments were caused by a subsequent slip and fall incident rather than the motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator found the applicant credible and concluded that the motor vehicle accident rendered an asymptomatic condition symptomatic, making her vulnerable to subsequent flare-ups.

The arbitrator awarded income replacement benefits from March 2014 onwards and approved several treatment plans, but denied a special award, finding the insurer had not acted unreasonably given the complex medical evidence.

The appellants appealed a Deputy Judge's decision dismissing their claim for damages arising from a failed septic system as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

They argued the Deputy Judge erred by not making an explicit finding under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) regarding whether a proceeding was an appropriate remedy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that once the Deputy Judge determined the objective discoverability date under s. 5(1)(b), no explicit finding under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) was required.

The respondent's cross-appeal for leave to appeal the costs award was also dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer follow-up questions from discovery undertakings, produce an insurance policy, and produce instruction letters sent to its expert witness.

The court held that the defendant did not require leave under Rule 48.04 to bring the motion.

The court ordered the plaintiff to answer one of the two follow-up questions and to produce the insurance policy, as it was a subrogated claim and the policy was relevant.

However, the court dismissed the request for the expert's instruction letters, finding they remained protected by litigation privilege and the expert reports already met the requirements of Rule 53.03(2.1).

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits from the insurer.

The insurer denied a medical benefit of $1,822.04 for an occupational therapy treatment plan, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines (MIG).

The arbitrator found that the insurer had sufficient medical information, including hospital records indicating a concussion, to remove the applicant from the MIG much earlier.

The arbitrator refused to qualify the insurer's medical examiner as an expert and concluded the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was awarded the medical benefit and interest, but the claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's conduct did not rise to the required level of unreasonableness.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which were initially denied by the respondent.

After the applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal, the parties resolved the substantive issues following a case conference.

The applicant sought costs, arguing the respondent acted unreasonably by failing to consider medical evidence and respond to correspondence prior to the case conference.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for costs, finding that conduct prior to the proceeding cannot attract costs under Rule 19.1, and the respondent's conduct during the proceeding did not meet the high bar for unreasonableness, as the respondent appropriately changed its position upon receiving additional documents at the case conference.