Annette Casullo

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) brought an application concerning the property of a woman with developmental delays, initially seeking to terminate her friend's power of attorney and be appointed guardian of property.

The PGT later sought court approval of a Trust Agreement to manage her settlement funds.

The court refused to approve the Trust Agreement, finding that the woman had the requisite capacity to grant the power of attorney to her friend.

The court emphasized the low threshold for capacity to grant a power of attorney and the importance of autonomy, and accepted the friend's informal passing of accounts.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend her statement of claim in a medical malpractice action against an otolaryngologist.

The defendants opposed several amendments, arguing they sought to add statute-barred causes of action and withdraw an admission.

The court found that the proposed amendments regarding two additional surgeries performed on the same day added new causes of action outside the limitation period.

The court also refused leave to withdraw an admission regarding when a risk discussion occurred, as the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the change in position.

The contested amendments were dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice due to significant trial delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff argued that waiting for a jury trial would cause substantial financial prejudice, as his future income loss would convert to past income loss subject to statutory deductions.

The court found that the practical reality in the Central East Region meant a jury trial would be delayed until at least late 2022, whereas a judge-alone trial could proceed much sooner.

The motion was granted and the jury notice was struck to ensure the timely delivery of justice.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a pedestrian/motor vehicle collision.

The matter was ready for trial but faced significant delays due to the suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted the motion, finding that the anticipated delay of over a year would prejudice the plaintiff and undermine the service guarantee of an expeditious determination on the merits.

The jury notice was struck to ensure justice was better served by a timely judge-alone trial.

The plaintiff passenger sued the defendant driver for negligence after their motorcycle collided with a deer in Wisconsin.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the collision was an inevitable accident.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the defendant's negligence due to his speed, lack of proper eyewear in the rain, and distraction.

Using its expanded fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04(2.1), the court determined the defendant was negligent, leaving damages to be assessed at trial.

The plaintiff, catastrophically injured and with a reduced life expectancy, brought a motion to strike jury notices and expedite her civil trial due to the significant delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted leave to bring the motion and conditionally struck the jury notices, allowing the matter to proceed as a non-jury trial if civil jury trials are not running when the case is called.

The court declined to order the matter be heard on the immediate pending sittings, deferring to the triage judge for expedition, acknowledging the defendant's counsel's scheduling conflict.

The plaintiff, BMW Financial Services Canada, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, Jingwe Liu, for monies owed under a vehicle lease agreement.

The defendant had admitted signing the lease in his statement of defence but later claimed the signature was a forgery and the witness was not present.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding the defendant's admission clear and definite, and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court also considered, hypothetically, a motion to withdraw the admission and found it would not be granted due to lack of reasonable explanation and non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Viana Canada Inc., brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction against the defendants, Sartotex Inc. and Claudio Baldo, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, good faith, fidelity, and confidentiality by Mr. Baldo, a former sales manager.

The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendants from soliciting customers/suppliers, competing directly, and using confidential information.

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR-MacDonald, requiring a "strong prima facie case" given the injunction's impact on Mr. Baldo's livelihood.

The court found Mr. Baldo was a fiduciary but determined the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case of unfair competition or solicitation.

The court also found no clear evidence of irreparable harm and concluded that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the defendants.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice due to significant delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that the ongoing adjournments were causing prejudice, including the erosion of her claim for past income loss.

The defendants opposed, asserting the right to a jury trial and advocating for a "wait and see" approach.

The court granted the motion, finding that the current and anticipated delays in civil jury trials in the Central East Region, coupled with the possibility of an earlier judge-alone trial, justified striking the jury notice.

The court emphasized that delay in obtaining a civil jury trial date can, by itself, constitute prejudice, aligning with recent Court of Appeal guidance.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking and failure to comply offences, applied for a bail review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code after spending over a year in pre-trial custody.

The court found that the applicant's continued detention was no longer justified under the primary, secondary, or tertiary grounds, noting the unreasonable delay in bringing the review, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on custodial conditions, and the applicant's acceptance into a bail supervision program.

The application was granted and the applicant was released on strict conditions without a surety.

The plaintiff construction manager brought a motion for summary judgment for its share of cost savings realized on a condominium project.

The defendant owner argued there were no cost savings and counterclaimed for damages.

The court interpreted the construction management contract, determining the Gross Liveable Area and finding that only construction costs managed by the plaintiff should be included in the actual total cost calculation.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered a reference to determine the exact quantum of cost savings.

The applicants, owners of cottage properties in Tiny Township, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent municipality from interfering with their use of a grassy area between their properties and the beach.

The applicants claimed exclusive possession of the grassy area for decades, while the municipality claimed ownership based on a 1931 dedication.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found a serious issue to be tried regarding ownership, that the applicants would suffer irreparable harm through loss of enjoyment and potential environmental impact, and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was granted.

The defendant moved to strike the self-represented plaintiff's Second Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiff sought $25 million in damages, alleging various torts and breach of contract arising from the defendants' request to inspect her electronic devices as a condition of settling her husband's separate litigation.

The court found that the pleading failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action, lacked necessary material facts, and was fundamentally defective.

The motion was granted, the claim was struck without leave to amend against all defendants, and costs of $17,500 were awarded to the moving party.

The responding party successfully defended a written motion and sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The moving party argued for nominal costs due to the responding party's alleged disregard for court rules.

The court found no basis for full indemnity costs and noted that the responding party's verbal offer to settle did not comply with Rule 49.

Applying the principles of proportionality, fairness, and reasonableness, the court awarded the responding party partial indemnity costs of $10,500 inclusive of disbursements.

Following a successful trial regarding the default of an asset purchase agreement, the plaintiffs sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that while both parties contributed to the lengthy litigation, the plaintiffs were entitled to costs on the higher end of the partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs' offer to settle did not trigger Rule 49 consequences as it was not as favourable as the judgment obtained.

The court fixed costs at $137,812.65 and waived the six-month waiting period to enforce the writ of seizure and sale, but declined to order that the judgment survive bankruptcy.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to amend a previous order to include the issuance of a new writ of seizure and sale *nunc pro tunc*, or alternatively, leave to issue an alias writ.

The original writ had expired in 2013, and a 2014 order for renewal was not properly implemented due to counsel's oversight, which was not discovered until 2019.

The defendant, Timothy Murray, opposed the motion, arguing that he would suffer irreparable prejudice due to significant changes in his financial and legal status over the 13 years since the judgment, having reasonably assumed the plaintiff had abandoned the claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant had detrimentally changed his position in reliance on the plaintiff's inaction, and that granting the relief would cause great prejudice.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment against the defendant due to default under a mortgage.

The defendant opposed, seeking to bring the mortgage back into good standing and alleging bad faith by the plaintiff.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial but declined to grant summary judgment immediately.

Instead, it granted the defendant conditional relief under Section 23(1) of the Mortgages Act, allowing her to cure the default by paying $100 into court and all outstanding money by a specified date, failing which the plaintiff could move for judgment.

Costs were reserved.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant to deliver its Affidavit of Documents and Schedule "A" productions, despite the suspension of procedural timelines due to COVID-19 emergency orders.

The defendant, an essential business, resisted production citing safety concerns for its CEO who lived with a high-risk individual.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that the defendant could safely facilitate document gathering and that litigation should continue despite the pandemic.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

This trial decision addresses a complex dispute arising from the sale of a business, involving a promissory note default, failure to assume a lease, and subsequent seizure of assets.

The vendor (plaintiffs) sought to recover a deficit, while the purchaser (defendants) counterclaimed for unlawful seizure and damages.

The court found the purchaser in default of the promissory note and the lease assumption.

It determined that notice prior to seizure was not required under the Personal Property Security Act's exception for collateral customarily sold on a recognized market, and that the vendor's actions, while dishonourable, did not breach the duty of honest performance.

Damages were assessed, adjusting the plaintiffs' claim by reducing excessive storage fees and crediting the defendant for an undervalued asset sale.

The plaintiff, Richard Froud, was wholly unsuccessful in his action against his sister, Susan Froud, concerning their mother's estate.

This endorsement addresses the defendants' request for substantial indemnity costs.

The court considered the defendants' offer to settle, which the plaintiff did not accept, and the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the plaintiff's conduct did not meet the threshold for reprehensible conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs, the court found the defendants' Bill of Costs reasonable given the complexity and duration of the litigation.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs of $75,000, inclusive of disbursements.