Angelo Giuseppe Sciacca

The City of Toronto, as Third Party, brought a motion to amend its Statement of Defence to the Third Party Claim to plead two statutory defences under the City of Toronto Act, 2006: failure to provide written notice (s. 42(6)) and that damages were caused by an object on an untraveled portion of the highway (s. 42(4)).

The Defendants opposed the motion, arguing presumed prejudice due to the late stage of the proceedings and that the proposed defences lacked merit.

The court, acting as case manager and trial judge, granted the motion, finding no actual or presumed prejudice and reiterating that the test for allowing an amendment to pleadings is not whether the defence will ultimately succeed at trial.

The plaintiff, AVS Transport Inc., sued Wim van Ravenswaay, Trevor van Ravenswaay, and 1046854 Ontario Inc. (W.G. Equipment Enterprises) for conversion of a stolen Mack dump truck.

The corporate defendant conceded liability for conversion of a "front clip" from the truck.

The court found William van Ravenswaay personally liable for conversion due to willful blindness regarding the stolen nature of the front clip, as he was the directing mind of the company and aware of industry fraud.

Trevor van Ravenswaay, an employee, was found not personally liable as there was no evidence he knew or ought to have known the front clip was stolen, despite his low credibility and significant role in the business.

Damages were assessed at $60,311.65, including the value of the front clip, loss of use, and investigation costs, with prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff sought approximately $2.6 million in damages against a contractor and an acrylic sheet manufacturer arising from alleged defects in the design, manufacture, and installation of a skylight system for a horse riding arena.

The plaintiff alleged negligent design, negligent manufacture of acrylic sheets, negligent misrepresentation in product literature, and spoliation of evidence.

After a lengthy trial, the court found no negligence or breach of contract by the contractor and no negligence in the manufacture of the acrylic sheets by the manufacturer.

Although the manufacturer should have disclosed certain test results regarding light transmittance, the plaintiff failed to prove causation.

The court further held the plaintiff fundamentally breached the contract and was contributorily negligent by refusing to install an automatic controller and by failing to implement recommended ventilation and heating measures, and also failed to mitigate its losses.

Costs decision following a refusals motion concerning whether documents and information sought on discovery were protected by statutory privilege under s. 266(2) of the Education Act.

The moving party’s motion to compel answers was largely unsuccessful after the court determined the privilege applied, though the moving party succeeded on a limited issue regarding an investigator’s report and several other matters were resolved consensually.

The successful responding party sought over $15,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The court held the requested amount was excessive given the simplicity of the factual issues and that certain claimed time related to general discovery obligations rather than the motion itself.

Applying proportionality and fairness principles under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded reduced costs of $6,000 against the moving party, with no costs payable by co-defendants who had merely responded to the motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 34.15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to compel a private school to answer refused questions on discovery and produce unredacted documents identifying non‑party students and parents who may have information relevant to claims including defamation, malicious prosecution, and breach of contract.

The school resisted disclosure relying on the statutory privilege for Ontario Student Records under s. 266(2) of the Education Act.

The court found the plaintiff’s narrower interpretation of the privilege persuasive but concluded it was bound by prior authority holding that students’ names and addresses form part of the OSR and are protected by the statutory privilege.

As a result, the court held the information could not be disclosed without consent of the students or parents.

The motion to compel answers and production was therefore dismissed, subject only to disclosure that would not identify non‑party students or their parents.