Amanda McBride

The plaintiff security company sued two former part-time supervisors and a related corporation for breach of fiduciary duty, misuse of confidential information, and wrongful competition after they were laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants counterclaimed for constructive dismissal and intentional interference with economic relations.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding the defendants were not fiduciaries, did not possess confidential information, and were free to work for competitors.

The court also dismissed the counterclaim, finding the defendants failed to prove any damages for constructive dismissal and failed to establish an actionable wrong for the intentional interference claim.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a vacant residential lot.

The defendant vendors had refused to close the transaction, claiming they were unable to remove outstanding writs of execution from title and treating the agreement as terminated.

The court found that the defendants failed to act in good faith to clear the title, as they could have paid the executions from the sale proceeds or paid the funds into court.

The court also found the property was unique to the plaintiffs given its location and affordability.

The plaintiffs' motion for specific performance was granted and the defendants' cross-motion was dismissed.

The defendants brought motions to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim, which alleged he was racially profiled and falsely accused of theft at a trade show.

The court dismissed the motions brought by the exhibitor and security company defendants, finding the claim disclosed potential causes of action in negligence, misrepresentation, and defamation when read generously.

The court granted the motion brought by the event organizer, striking the claim against it without leave to amend, as no reasonable cause of action was discernible.

The defendants, based in Quebec, moved to set aside service of the statement of claim outside Ontario and to stay the proceeding on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiffs, based in Ontario, sued for breach of contract and warranty regarding allegedly defective spas.

The court found that the contract was made in Ontario through the plaintiffs' continuous acceptance of terms, justifying service outside Ontario under Rule 17.02.

The court also declined to stay the proceeding, finding that while Quebec had jurisdiction over a related action, it was not clearly a more appropriate forum for this specific dispute.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant was successful on a motion for summary judgment and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $73,904.88, or alternatively $58,976.58 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the amount was excessive and suggested $20,000.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs as there was no offer to settle or reprehensible conduct.

Finding overlap and excessive hours in the defendant's bill of costs, the court awarded the defendant $25,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements on a partial indemnity scale.

The appellants were passengers injured when another passenger, who was experiencing delusions, grabbed the steering wheel of a Greyhound bus, causing it to crash.

The appellants sued the bus company, the driver, and police officers who had interacted with the passenger before he boarded.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no breach of the standard of care by any of the respondents.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred by excluding expert evidence on police crisis management and bus safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly exercised his gatekeeper function in excluding the expert evidence because it was not necessary to assist the trier of fact in determining the applicable standards of care.

The plaintiffs were passengers on a Greyhound bus who were injured when another passenger, Davis, suddenly grabbed the steering wheel, causing the bus to crash.

Prior to boarding, Davis had exhibited signs of mild paranoia and had interacted with OPP officers, who concluded he was not a danger to himself or others.

The plaintiffs sued the OPP, the officers, Greyhound, and the bus driver for negligence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action against all defendants except Davis, finding that the police officers acted reasonably and had no legal grounds to apprehend or detain Davis under the Mental Health Act or common law.

The court also found that the bus driver and Greyhound met the high standard of care expected of a common carrier, as the sudden attack was not reasonably foreseeable and the driver's actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

The court proceeded to assess the hypothetical damages for each plaintiff.