Arthur Douglas Burns

The plaintiff brought an action against a police officer and the police services board for intrusion upon seclusion, harassment, and bullying.

The officer, who was the ex-spouse of the plaintiff's boyfriend, had conducted brief, unauthorized searches of the plaintiff's name in a police database for personal reasons.

The court dismissed the intrusion upon seclusion claim, finding the searches were a minimal invasion of privacy that a reasonable person would not consider highly offensive.

The court also dismissed the harassment claims, concluding the officer's communications were not outrageous or threatening, and found no basis for vicarious liability against the police services board.

The applicant and respondent are brothers and shareholders in a corporation that owns a commercial property.

The respondent accepted an offer to sell the property on behalf of the corporation.

The applicant brought an oppression remedy application, alleging he was improperly excluded from management, and sought a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against the property to prevent the sale.

The court dismissed the motion for a CPL, holding that a shareholder does not have a direct interest in the lands owned by the corporation, which is a requirement for a CPL under the Courts of Justice Act.

The court noted the appropriate remedy would be an injunction.

The plaintiff, Electromart (Ontario) Inc., brought an ex parte motion seeking extraordinary relief including a Mareva injunction, a Norwich order, a certificate of pending litigation, and the delivery up of electronic devices.

The plaintiff alleged substantial fraud by two former employees, John Henry Fabianiak and Penny Ann Graziotto, and their company, Current Electrical Supply Inc., involving unreported sales and diversion of funds exceeding $300,000.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and inferred a real risk of asset dissipation, granting a 10-day Mareva injunction.

Other requested relief was declined without notice to the defendants.

The plaintiff initiated an action alleging fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation against the defendants concerning a property transaction and mortgage.

Despite early settlement offers from the defendants, the plaintiff did not accept them.

The action was ultimately dismissed on consent immediately prior to a scheduled summary judgment motion.

The court, in this costs ruling, awarded the defendants full indemnity costs, determining that the plaintiff's allegations were ill-founded and significantly detrimental to the defendants' professional reputations, thereby justifying a higher scale of costs.

The defendant successfully sought a dismissal or stay of the main action on the basis that it was improperly constituted, as well as the payment out of court of $110,000.

The court found that the plaintiff was responsible for the wasted time and money subsequent to the setting aside of the default judgment.

Consequently, the court awarded the defendant her costs of the action on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $19,662 for fees and $3,757.25 for disbursements.

Following a trial concerning an alleged fundamental breach of a commercial lease, the court issued a separate ruling addressing costs.

Although the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining judgment and defeating the counterclaim, the success was characterized as mixed because the damages awarded were significantly lower than claimed and several claims were dismissed.

The court also criticized both parties and their principals for unreliable evidence and a poorly drafted lease that unnecessarily complicated the trial.

However, the plaintiff had delivered a Rule 49 offer to settle that was bettered by the trial result.

Considering the offer and the factors under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed costs payable by one defendant to the plaintiff at $50,000 all inclusive.

The applicant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on a medical condition report indicating drug dependence and a loss of consciousness.

The applicant had collapsed at home and was taken to the hospital, where an emergency room physician suspected opiate addiction.

However, evidence from the applicant's family physician and subsequent drug screens showed no drug dependency, and the only opiate present was a prescribed medication for a shoulder injury.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not addicted to alcohol or drugs to an extent that would interfere with safe driving.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to refuse the transfer of a liquor licence for Jax Bar and Grill.

The Registrar argued that the Applicant's past conduct, failure to cooperate with the investigation, and the heavy involvement of his father—who had an extensive criminal record—indicated the business would not be run with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal found the Applicant uncooperative, his testimony inconsistent, and concluded that his father would likely continue to play a dominant role in the operations.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the licence transfer.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the liquor licence of Mac's North End Pub due to the licensee's failure to file returns and remit Retail Sales Tax (RST) since 2008.

The Board found that the licensee's complete failure to meet its RST obligations demonstrated a lack of financial responsibility, violating subsection 6(2)(a) of the Liquor Licence Act.

However, the Board dismissed the allegation under subsection 6(2)(d), finding that the failure resulted from the licensee being overwhelmed and lacking financial control, rather than from dishonesty or a lack of integrity.

The Board invited written submissions on penalty.

The Registrar appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) concerning the registration of a real estate broker and brokerage.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the LAT exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to make the necessary threshold determinations under s. 10(1)(a) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 before ordering remedies.

Furthermore, the LAT exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the registration of the respondent as a salesperson, which was not an issue before it.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel for a rehearing.

The Court also provided guidance for the rehearing, noting that the civil standard of proof is a balance of probabilities and that interfering with trust accounts is inherently wrongful.

The complainants alleged that they were sexually harassed and constructively dismissed by their employer while working at a donut shop.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer exploited the vulnerable position of one complainant, who was on a temporary absence from jail and required employment to remain out of custody.

The Board concluded that the employer's persistent sexual advances and subsequent verbal abuse when rebuffed constituted sex discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The respondents were found jointly and severally liable and ordered to pay general damages and lost wages to both complainants.