Amy Sherrard

The appellant landowner sued a municipality alleging constructive taking of approximately 965 acres of vacant land, claiming the municipality's refusal to initiate a secondary planning process — combined with alleged encouragement of public use of the lands as a park — amounted to a de facto expropriation without compensation.

The majority (5-4) held that the CPR test for constructive taking requires only that a public authority acquire a 'beneficial interest' understood broadly as an 'advantage' (not necessarily a proprietary interest), and that the municipality's intention may be a relevant material fact.

The majority restored the motion judge's order allowing the constructive taking claim to proceed to trial, finding genuine issues of material fact.

The four dissenting justices would have dismissed the appeal, holding that CPR requires acquisition of a proprietary interest and that intention is irrelevant to the de facto taking analysis.

The applicants subscribed for flow-through shares in mining companies, which renounced Canadian exploration expenses to them.

The CRA later reassessed the companies and the applicants, disallowing the expenses.

The applicants sought immediate indemnification from the respondent under their subscription agreements for the taxes paid under the reassessments.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the indemnities were not payable until the amount of taxes was 'definitively determined' or 'determined', which had not yet occurred as the respondent's appeal of the CRA reassessment was still pending.

The plaintiffs brought motions to compel the examination of a defendant on behalf of a corporate defendant and for further and better affidavits of documents from several defendants.

The parties agreed to dismiss the examination motion and portions of the production motion without prejudice.

The court ordered one defendant to produce certain financial documents relevant to personal enrichment and an itemized Schedule B list, but dismissed the remaining requests for further documents and better email descriptors, finding insufficient evidence of missing documents and that the current descriptors were proportionate.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed costs for both the appeal and the underlying summary judgment motion.

The parties agreed to no costs for the appeal due to divided success.

For the summary judgment motion, the court declined to award costs to the primary appellants (Bistricer) or respondents (Rubner), citing reasons such as new arguments on appeal and divided success.

However, the litigation guardian for Eda Rubner, who was aligned with the original applicants, was awarded partial recovery of costs for the summary judgment motion.

This appeal concerns a financial dispute among adult siblings over entitlement to distributions from a valuable investment in a residential development in Oakville, Ontario.

The investment, originally a 10% interest in the Lower Fourth Joint Venture purchased by the father in 1969, was held by the mother in trust for three children in equal shares.

The daughter disclaimed her interest for tax reasons.

When distributions began in 2014, they were deposited into bank accounts opened in the mother's name.

The central issue was whether the mother held the distributions as bare trustee for the daughter or whether the daughter had received only individual gifts.

The Court of Appeal found that a bare trust existed over the bank account contents for the benefit of both the daughter and one son in equal shares, reversing the trial judge's finding that the mother held the funds beneficially.

In a medical malpractice action, the defendant brought a motion to disqualify the plaintiffs' expert epidemiologist, Dr. Michael Freeman.

The court granted the motion, finding that Dr. Freeman lacked specialized knowledge in the specific medical areas (metabolics and neurology) relevant to the causation question.

His "comparative risk" methodology was deemed outside the mainstream study of epidemiology for specific causation, and his reports indicated a lack of objectivity by primarily critiquing other experts rather than offering independent analysis within his own expertise.

The court also noted that his proposed evidence was not necessary, as the plaintiffs' other expert covered the same points.

The defendant in a medical malpractice action brought a motion at the outset of trial to strike the plaintiffs' jury notice.

The defendant argued that the complex scientific evidence relating to the minor plaintiff's rare metabolic disorder and the issue of causation made the case unsuitable for a jury.

Applying the principles from Kempf v. Nguyen, the court declined to strike the jury notice prior to trial, opting instead for the preferred 'wait and see' approach.

The motion was dismissed with leave to renew after the evidence is completed.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to answer approximately 58 refusals arising from an examination for discovery.

The underlying action involves claims of breach of a dealership agreement, trademark infringement, and false warranty claims.

The court applied the principles of relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to make further inquiries regarding a specific networking trip and to produce targeted reports related to alleged false warranty claims, but dismissed the defendants' requests for broader electronic searches and financial records as disproportionate.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiffs to compel the defendants to answer undertakings and refusals, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiffs sought $35,000 representing 70% of their full indemnity costs, while the defendants argued the parties should bear their own costs or pay $5,000.

The court found no basis to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event, but declined to award costs on a substantial indemnity scale as the defendants' conduct was not reprehensible.

The court fixed costs at $26,000 payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the Defendants to answer undertakings, questions taken under advisement, and refusals from examinations for discovery, and to serve a further affidavit of documents and re-attend discovery.

The Master, applying principles of proportionality and relevance, granted most of the Plaintiffs' requests, ordering the Defendants to provide specific information and documents related to warranty claims, alleged trademark/copyright infringement damages, corporate affiliates, sales data, and customer information.

Some requests were dismissed as disproportionate or already addressed.

The Master also ordered the Defendants to provide outstanding Lawyer's Certificates and re-attend discovery.