Anne M. Mullins

The plaintiffs, Central Park Ajax 1 Developments Phase 1 Inc. and LeMine Real Estate Consulting Inc., brought a claim for $300 million in damages and declaratory relief against The Corporation of the Town of Ajax and Rob Ford, alleging breach of contract, defamation, and unlawful interference.

The core dispute revolved around the Town's right to repurchase development lands due to the plaintiffs' alleged failure to commence construction by a contractual deadline.

The court was asked to determine two key issues: (1) whether LeMine was awaiting approval for a site plan application from the Town on or prior to July 17, 2017, which would invalidate the repurchase notice, and (2) if not, whether the Town had the right to repurchase the lands due to LeMine's failure to start construction by July 16, 2017.

The court found that LeMine had not submitted a complete site plan application sufficient for council consideration and was therefore not "awaiting confirmation of approval." Furthermore, the court interpreted the development agreement, considering both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, to conclude that LeMine was contractually obliged to commence construction by July 15, 2017, and failed to do so.

Consequently, the Town's repurchase notice was deemed valid, and the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed on these issues.

The applicant, Monika Caryk, sought a Norwich Order compelling the respondent, Melinda Karlsson, to disclose information relevant to allegations that Caryk engaged in cyberbullying of Karlsson.

Caryk's reputation was allegedly damaged by media reports attributing online posts to her, stemming from Karlsson's now-expired peace bond application.

The court applied the five-part test for a Norwich Order, finding that Caryk failed to establish a tenable cause of action, that Karlsson was the only practicable source of the information, or that the interests of justice favored granting the order.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

The applicants sought an order of mandamus to compel the Town of Georgina to approve a fill application and issue a permit.

The court reviewed the requirements for mandamus and the parties' positions on the standard of review and municipal discretion.

Ultimately, the court raised a jurisdictional issue, noting that under section 6(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, applications for relief in the nature of mandamus must generally be brought in the Divisional Court.

The court granted the parties 60 days to make submissions on jurisdiction, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger in a van driven by a 16-year-old unlicensed driver.

The driver had taken the van, owned by his mother, without her permission while she slept.

In this liability trial, the court found the driver negligent but dismissed the claims against the mother, finding she did not give express or implied consent to possession of the vehicle and was not negligent in securing her keys.

The court also found the plaintiff ought to have known the vehicle was taken without consent, thereby excluding him from uninsured motorist coverage under the mother's insurance policy.

The Minister of Finance, on behalf of the uninsured defendant driver, brought a motion seeking to preclude the co-defendant insurer from relying on a policy exclusion for operating a vehicle without consent.

The moving party argued that because the insurer had previously settled the plaintiff's statutory accident benefits claim, relying on the exclusion in the tort action constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the accident benefits settlement was explicitly without prejudice and did not constitute an admission of liability that would prevent the insurer from defending the tort claim on its merits.

The defendant developer moved to discharge a construction lien registered by the plaintiff contractor, arguing the lien was registered out of time because the parties had entered into five separate contracts rather than one global contract.

The plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting there was only one contract for the entire subdivision project.

Applying principles of contract interpretation, the court found the explicit provisions of the contractual materials clearly established five separate agreements.

Consequently, the plaintiff's lien was registered out of time and was invalid, particularly as it was registered against premises where no work or materials were supplied.

The defendant's motion to discharge the lien and release funds paid into court was granted.

The plaintiff equipment rental company moved for summary judgment against the defendant developer for rental charges and damages related to equipment left on the defendant's site after the general contractor went bankrupt and abandoned the project.

The plaintiff advanced claims of unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and conversion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the defendant used or benefited from the equipment after the contractor abandoned the site, nor any evidence that the defendant caused damage to the equipment.

The defendant, Festus Samuel, was charged with sexual assault.

The central issue was whether the sexual activity occurred with the complainant's consent, focusing on the reliability of her evidence.

The complainant, an 18-year-old with limited alcohol experience, consumed alcohol and experienced blurred vision and motor impairment.

Her testimony regarding non-consent was challenged due to inconsistencies, particularly concerning a prior sexual encounter with a co-accused and details of the events.

While her distress upon returning home was compelling, the court found her evidence of non-consent not sufficiently reliable to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company, as Estate Trustee for Lidia Iaboni, brought an application to pass accounts.

Carlo Iaboni filed a Notice of Objection, alleging exclusion of assets, wealth evaporation, and conflict of interest.

His siblings, Norma Moretto and Ferdinando Iaboni, moved to strike the Notice of Objection, arguing the grounds were without merit, time-barred, and an abuse of process, given prior litigation.

The court found Carlo Iaboni's objections lacked substance, were largely time-barred, and constituted an abuse of process, particularly as he failed to comply with prior settlement minutes and allowed a previous civil action raising similar issues to be dismissed for delay.

The court dismissed Carlo Iaboni's objections and struck his Notice of Objection.

This partial judgment addresses cross-applications between the Fenwicks (purchasers) and Concierge Auctions ULC (auctioneer) regarding a $430,000 buyer's premium held in court.

The dispute arose after a real estate auction failed to close due to vendor mortgage issues, leading the Fenwicks to enter a second agreement to purchase the property directly from the vendors.

Concierge claimed the buyer's premium, arguing the second sale was an extension of the first, while the Fenwicks contended the original sale's failure negated Concierge's entitlement.

The court found the two agreements constituted one continuous transaction, entitling Concierge to the buyer's premium plus HST and pre-judgment interest, and dismissed claims of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.

The plaintiff sued the defendant appraisers for professional negligence after an arbitrator rejected their real estate appraisal, resulting in the plaintiff receiving a lower buyout price for its property interest.

The defendants brought a third party claim against the plaintiff's former lawyers, alleging the lawyers negligently represented the plaintiff during the arbitration and caused the losses.

The lawyers moved to strike the third party claim, arguing it merely alleged a failure to mitigate and was barred by issue estoppel.

The defendants cross-moved to amend the claim and add another law firm as a third party.

The court struck the portions of the third party claim that amounted to a failure to mitigate the initial loss caused by the appraisal.

However, the court allowed the broader claims regarding the lawyers' negligent representation at the arbitration to proceed, finding they disclosed a tenable cause of action.

The court also granted the defendants leave to add the proposed third parties.

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review concerning the duty to consult on a wind farm project, the successful respondents sought costs.

The court noted the complexity of the issue, the significant financial stakes of the $240 million project, and the applicant's 15-month delay in commencing the application.

The court awarded costs of $50,000 plus disbursements and HST to each of the two respondent groups, while the respondent Minister did not seek costs.

The plaintiff successfully resisted the defendants' motion to set aside default judgment and sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The defendants conceded the plaintiff's entitlement to costs but contested the scale.

The court found no evidence of conduct warranting full indemnity costs, which are reserved for exceptional circumstances.

However, considering the plaintiff's success, the voluminous and complex factual record, and the defendants' conduct in delaying and lengthening the process, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court adjusted the clerk's hourly rate from $180 to $100 and allowed two-thirds of the substantial indemnity fees claimed, along with disbursements.

The defendant George Pappas moved to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff Lucy Romero, arguing irregularity in the judgment and offering an explanation for default.

The court found a clear irregularity as the judgment ordered Pappas to pay a sum not requested in the statement of claim against him.

The court also considered the test for setting aside default judgment, finding Pappas's explanation plausible and an arguable defence, with no prejudice to the plaintiff.

The motion to set aside the default judgment against Pappas was granted, and all enforcement proceedings against him were stayed.

The applicants sought a declaration that their insurers had a duty to defend and indemnify them in an underlying tort action, along with punitive damages and costs.

The insurers eventually acknowledged the duty to defend and indemnify for reasonable legal fees.

The court found the declaration issue moot due to the insurers' acknowledgment, assessed the reasonable costs for both the tort defence and the coverage dispute, and dismissed the claim for punitive damages, finding the insurers' conduct did not meet the high threshold for such an award.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant auto collision company for the value of a financed truck.

The individual defendant had financed the truck through the plaintiff but gave it to the corporate defendant to convert into a tow truck and use in its fleet.

The corporate defendant claimed a lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act for conversion, repair, and storage costs, and subsequently transferred ownership to itself.

The court found the corporate defendant failed to comply with the Act, had no valid lien, and wrongfully converted the vehicle, awarding the plaintiff damages based on the truck's appraised value.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation related to a failed real estate development project.

The plaintiff sought rescission of the contract and recovery of his $500,000 investment.

The defendants argued that the claims were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, and raised genuine issues regarding the existence of a fiduciary duty, the cause of the project's failure, and the calculation of damages.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that there were multiple genuine issues requiring a trial, including the nature of the relationship between the parties, the state of the defendants' knowledge, and the limitation period.

The applicant sought an equalization award, spousal support, and a continuation of a restraining order.

The respondent had filed for bankruptcy.

The court determined the date of separation as June 30, 2012.

The applicant's claim for equalization of net family property was found to be released by the respondent's absolute discharge in bankruptcy, consistent with the principles in Schreyer v. Schreyer, as the claim was provable in bankruptcy and the applicant had made a claim and obtained leave to litigate.

The court awarded the applicant $25,000 in lump sum spousal support arrears, considering the economic circumstances and the respondent's exempt pension.

The request for a continued restraining order was denied due to a lack of evidence of recent threats.

The applicant, a reserve retailer, sought judicial review of a First Nation Council's decision to allocate tax-exempt cigarettes to another business, arguing the business was not located on the reserve.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant lacked both private and public interest standing.

The applicant failed to show a causal relationship between the alleged prejudice and the challenged action, and the issue raised was not a serious justiciable issue affecting the public interest.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff in 2010 regarding a failed immigration consulting contract.

The defendants argued they were not properly served and that the claim was not a liquidated demand.

The court found that service was properly effected pursuant to a substituted service order and that the claim for a refund of the contract price was a liquidated demand.

Applying the test to set aside a default judgment, the court held that the defendants failed to move promptly after learning of the judgment and that the plaintiff would suffer significant prejudice due to the death of key witnesses.

The motion was dismissed.