A.P. Ramsay

The plaintiff, a former consultant and minority shareholder of Kela Medical Inc., brought an action for oppression, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of good faith against the corporation and its principals.

The plaintiff claimed he was entitled to a 33% stake in the proceeds of the sale of a related company, KAI, based on a 2013 compensation agreement.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the 2013 Agreement was a one-year contract that expired before the conditions for the plaintiff's claimed benefits were met.

The court also found no oppressive conduct or misrepresentations by the defendants.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff's claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as he knew or ought to have known the material facts giving rise to his claims when he resigned in 2014, more than two years before commencing the proceeding.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the applicant father sought primary residence and sole decision-making for the parties' seven-year-old child, while the respondent mother sought a 'therapeutic goodbye' to sever the father's relationship with the child.

The mother had made numerous allegations of family violence and child sexual abuse against the father, resulting in criminal charges that were later withdrawn.

The court found that the mother engaged in severe parental alienation, coached the child to make false abuse allegations, and deliberately sabotaged 51 court-ordered supervised parenting visits.

Concluding that the mother's restrictive gatekeeping and alienating behaviour caused psychological harm to the child, the court awarded sole decision-making and primary residence to the father, along with a five-month no-contact order for the mother.

The court also ordered the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, imputed an income of $60,000 to the mother for child support, and ordered her to pay an equalization payment of $100,327.47.

The applicant sought to set aside a marriage contract executed in St. Lucia the day before the parties' wedding.

The court determined that Ontario law applied to the contract.

Although the contract met the formal requirements of the Family Law Act, the court found grounds to set it aside under section 56(4).

The respondent failed to disclose significant assets, including his pension and real property, the applicant did not understand the nature or consequences of the contract, and she signed it under duress related to her immigration status.

The court exercised its discretion to set aside the agreement due to substantial unfairness in the bargaining process.

The applicant husband commenced a divorce application in Ontario while residing in India.

The respondent wife, who had never lived in Canada, subsequently commenced divorce and support proceedings in India.

The respondent brought a motion to stay or dismiss the Ontario application for lack of jurisdiction.

The court granted the motion, finding that neither party had been habitually resident in Ontario for at least one year prior to the application, as required by the Divorce Act.

The court also held that the respondent could not attorn to a jurisdiction the court did not possess, and that under the Family Law Act, the parties' property rights were governed by the law of India, their last common habitual residence.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for over $500,000, alleging they made various loans and investments to the defendants over a decade while their daughter lived with the defendants as a homestay student.

The defendants argued the funds were payments for the daughter's room, board, tuition, and other expenses.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action in its entirety, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of the alleged loans and investments.

Furthermore, the court held that all of the plaintiffs' claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiffs failed to act with due diligence in pursuing the alleged debts.

The applicant employer sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce non-competition and confidentiality clauses against a former employee who resigned and joined a competitor.

The employee had signed an employment agreement and later a shareholder agreement containing broader restrictive covenants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the restrictive covenants were reasonable or enforceable, as they were overly broad and ambiguous.

The court also found no evidence of irreparable harm, as the applicant's claims of misused confidential information were speculative, and the balance of convenience favoured the employee.

The plaintiffs, a mother and son, brought an action against the defendant, the mother's separated spouse, regarding the ownership of an investment property.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendant held his registered 33 percent interest in trust for the son, who allegedly contributed to the purchase and renovations.

The defendant relied on a marriage contract that stipulated ownership governed property division and counterclaimed for partition and sale, an accounting of rental income, and the return of personal belongings.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' trust claims, finding the marriage contract binding and the son's contributions unproven.

The court granted the defendant's counterclaim for partition and sale, an accounting of rental income from 2017 onwards, and the return of his personal belongings.

Following a default judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, the court issued a supplementary endorsement addressing HST, pre-judgment interest, and costs.

The court clarified the application of HST to specific damage amounts and awarded pre-judgment interest at the contractual rate of 3% over prime for disposal and restoration costs, as these fell under the definition of 'Additional Rent' in the lease.

The plaintiffs were awarded costs of $31,385.41 on a substantial indemnity basis pursuant to the lease agreement.

The applicant, a minor acting through his litigation guardian, brought an application to approve a settlement of statutory accident benefits claims with the respondent insurer.

The court found the application materials deficient, noting that Rule 7.08 requires an affidavit from a lawyer, whereas the filed affidavit was sworn by a paralegal.

The court adjourned the application, directing the applicant to file compliant materials, including a lawyer's affidavit, the proposed minutes of settlement, and further evidence regarding the minor's injuries, ongoing impairments, and the fairness of the settlement.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to approve a tort settlement of $40,000 pursuant to Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The settlement was reached when the plaintiff was 16 years old, but the motion for approval was brought after the plaintiff had reached the age of majority.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it had no authority under Rule 7.08 to approve a settlement for a person who is no longer a minor.

The court noted that the plaintiff must instead obtain an order to continue under Rule 7.06.

The appellant trusts appealed income tax reassessments for the 2006 and 2007 taxation years, arguing they were resident in Alberta and subject to Alberta provincial tax.

The Minister of Finance reassessed the trusts as residents of Ontario.

The court applied the central management and control test to determine trust residency.

The court found that the trustees in Alberta performed primarily administrative functions, while the actual management and control of the trust property was exercised by a beneficiary and professional advisors in Ontario.

The appeals were dismissed.

The applicant sought to be appointed as guardian of property and person for her 80-year-old grandmother, who was suspected of having dementia.

The application could not be heard on its merits due to late filing of materials and a lack of sufficient information regarding the respondent's assets.

The court adjourned the hearing, suspended the existing Power of Attorney, and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as temporary guardian of property to investigate the respondent's financial affairs.

The applicants commenced an application under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order for the York Regional Police to produce unredacted records relating to a fatal accident investigation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Rule 30.10 contemplates a motion within an existing action, not an originating application.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to name the police as a respondent, failed to file a mandatory factum, and failed to address the legal test for non-party production.

The plaintiff, a former Senior Financial Services Representative at CIBC, brought an action for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause.

The employer alleged that the plaintiff repeatedly breached its Code of Conduct and policies, including failing to review overdraft reports, pulling credit bureau records without signed consent, and altering signed mortgage payout statements.

The court applied the contextual approach to just cause and found that the plaintiff's cumulative and persistent breaches of the employer's policies, despite previous warnings, struck at the heart of the employment relationship.

The action was dismissed.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded damages for unpaid wages against the corporate defendant but her claims against the individual defendants were dismissed, the court determined costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs due to the defendants' failure to admit facts.

The court rejected this, awarding partial indemnity costs of $59,000 plus HST and disbursements against the corporate defendant.

The court declined to award costs to the successful self-represented individual defendants, noting their failure to provide evidence of opportunity costs and the interwoven nature of the claims.

The plaintiff lender brought a motion for summary judgment seeking over $1.3 million in liquidated damages for the defendants' alleged breach of a commercial mortgage commitment letter.

The defendants failed to close the loan after being unable to acquire one of the properties intended as security.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues requiring a trial.

Specifically, the court found insufficient evidence to determine whether the plaintiff was actually ready, willing, and able to fund the loan on the closing date, and whether the substantial commitment fees and accelerated interest claimed constituted an unenforceable penalty under section 8 of the Interest Act.

The plaintiff consulting firm brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant pharmaceutical company for unpaid invoices totaling $506,198.70 related to expert litigation services provided in a UK proceeding.

The defendant argued the fees exceeded litigation budgets and were unreasonable, and that the plaintiff was estopped from relying on a five-day notice of objection provision in the retainer agreement.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial as the budgets were not part of the contract, no timely written objections were made, and there was no evidence of promissory estoppel.

The plaintiff was awarded the full amount claimed, with pre-judgment interest capped at 5% per year under the Interest Act.

Following a summary judgment finding the defendant liable for a massive campaign of internet defamation against 53 plaintiffs, the court conducted a trial on the assessment of damages.

The defendant had posted thousands of vile and false statements online, accusing the plaintiffs—mostly recruiters and executives—of pedophilia, sexual assault, fraud, and other egregious acts.

The court awarded general damages ranging from $50,000 to $95,000 per plaintiff, aggravated damages of $1,500 to 34 plaintiffs who demonstrated significant mental distress, and punitive damages of $9,000 to each plaintiff due to the defendant's malicious and high-handed conduct.

The court also granted a permanent injunction and ordered the defendant to remove the defamatory content from the internet.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' insurance coverage application, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought $100,000 based on a pre-hearing costs agreement, or alternatively $254,566.28 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued the agreement should not be enforced because the respondent's evolving position caused them to incur significant additional costs.

The court enforced the costs agreement, finding no breach or vitiating factors, and awarded the respondent $100,000 for the application plus $8,136 for the costs submissions.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend a Mareva injunction related to an alleged $1.4 million renovation fraud.

A defendant brought a cross-motion to discharge the order against him, and a non-party sought relief from an order compelling his examination under oath.

The court extended the Mareva order, dismissed the defendant's cross-motion as premature due to missing financial disclosure, and suspended the examination order against the non-party due to lack of service and reliance on implausible hearsay evidence.

The court also provided strict directions regarding the proper use of CaseLines and hyperlinking for future attendances.