Audrey P. Ramsay

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, sought a declaration of oppression against the condominium corporation under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, alleging failure to address noise complaints, security concerns, and maintenance disparities between different buildings within the condominium.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the corporation acted reasonably in addressing noise issues and that the applicant's other complaints regarding security and maintenance did not constitute oppressive conduct.

The court applied the two-part test for oppression remedy, emphasizing the objective reasonableness of expectations and deferring to the board's business judgment in balancing the interests of all unit owners.

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 plaintiffs, having succeeded in a defamation action, sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant, self-represented and claiming impecuniosity, argued for reduced costs.

The court rejected the defendant's impecuniosity argument due to lack of evidence and the egregious nature of his underlying conduct.

However, the court declined to award full or substantial indemnity costs, finding that while the defendant's conduct was sanctionable in the underlying action, it did not meet the high threshold of "reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous" conduct required for elevated costs in this costs endorsement.

The court fixed partial indemnity legal fees for the plaintiffs and referred the disbursements for assessment due to a lack of supporting documentation.

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 plaintiffs, commercial landlords, sought default judgment against the defendant tenant for breach of a commercial lease due to unpaid rent.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court granted partial damages for rental arrears, past and future lost rent for a re-let portion of the premises, and costs for property removal and leasehold improvements.

However, the court declined to award future lost rent for the un-relet portion of the premises, finding insufficient evidence regarding actual rental value and reasonable mitigation efforts.

The balance of the claim for future damages was directed to a separate assessment trial.

The plaintiffs, Qi Sen Li and Li Jin, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) or, alternatively, damages for breach of contract and return of a deposit.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to discharge their initial evidentiary burden to demonstrate that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The decision highlighted deficiencies in the plaintiffs' evidence, particularly the reliance on an affidavit from a non-party to the contract (Li Jin) and the absence of evidence from the actual purchaser (Qi Sen Li) regarding key contractual elements such as deposit payment, waiver of conditions, and readiness to tender.

This is a costs endorsement following the successful dismissal of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) action against media defendants (Corus and JNN defendants) under section 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court determined that the successful defendants were entitled to full indemnity costs, as per the statutory presumption in section 137.1(7) of the CJA, finding no factors to displace this presumption.

The plaintiff failed to file responding costs submissions.

The court awarded the Corus defendants $92,820.00 in legal fees plus HST and disbursements, and the JNN defendants $66,402.00 in legal fees plus HST and disbursements, totaling $79,443.78.

The decision emphasizes the complexity and length of anti-SLAPP motions in justifying the quantum of costs.

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 brought a motion for default judgment on a proposed amended statement of claim, an order abridging time for service, and an order amending the statement of claim, seeking increased damages for mortgage deficiencies.

The motion was dismissed due to procedural irregularities and jurisdictional issues.

The court found that the motion to amend pleadings was not properly scheduled or served, and that motions for liquidated damages and amendments fall within the jurisdiction of an Associate Judge, not a Superior Court Justice in the Toronto Region.

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.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to enforce a settlement agreement.

The court determined that Rule 49.09 was inapplicable as the settlement was not a formal Rule 49 offer.

Furthermore, the court found that no enforceable common law settlement agreement existed because the parties had not reached a mutual agreement on all essential terms, specifically the precise monetary amounts, as evidenced by ongoing negotiations.

Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a trust company, sought summary judgment to enforce a compensation agreement for its services as attorney for property under a continuing power of attorney.

The defendant, who had revoked the power of attorney, disputed the quantum of fees, arguing that compensation should be determined by the Substitute Decisions Act rather than the contractual agreement.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the express compensation terms in the validly executed agreement superseded the statutory compensation scheme under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the enforceability of the contract or the calculation of fees based on the agreed-upon formula.

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.

Samine LLC, the successful respondent in a prior appeal, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Samine requested $7,000, while the appellants, Digital Shovel Holdings Inc. and Scot Johnson (DSHI), proposed $5,192.92.

The court found Samine's requested amount reasonable, proportionate, and within the unsuccessful party's reasonable expectation, especially when compared to the time spent by DSHI's own counsel on the appeal.

The court awarded Samine LLC the full amount of $7,000 in costs.

The plaintiff, a former Director of Sustainability, brought a motion for summary judgment against his former employer for wrongful dismissal.

The central dispute concerned the enforceability of the termination clause in the employment agreement and stock option agreements, and the appropriate common law notice period.

The court found the termination clause unenforceable because it purported to deny all payments, including statutory minimums, for "just cause" dismissal, which is a broader standard than the "wilful misconduct" exception under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The court awarded the plaintiff six months' common law notice, 10% of his base salary for benefits in lieu of notice, and vacation pay on bonuses and severance pay.

The claim for a further discretionary bonus was dismissed.

The issue of compensation for post-termination stock options was directed to an expedited trial due to unresolved credibility issues.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking reconsideration and amendment of a prior endorsement that approved a minor's settlement in a tort action.

The motion sought to clarify or correct findings regarding the settlement quantum, structured settlements for minors, and the enforceability of contingency fee and referral fee agreements.

The court dismissed the motion for reconsideration, except for a minor accidental slip, reaffirming the narrow scope for judicial reconsideration of decisions before formal judgment entry, emphasizing that such motions are generally not a substitute for appeal.

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.