A. Wong

The moving party defendants sought summary judgment dismissing the responding party defendants' crossclaim for independent damages and equitable set-off relating to environmental contamination of a purchased property.

The moving parties argued the claims were brought more than two years after the responding parties knew or ought to have known of the contamination.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding when the responding parties, who were unsophisticated purchasers, ought to have discovered the claim given conflicting evidence about which environmental reports were provided prior to closing.

The court also held that the independent damages claim was not a new cause of action but an additional form of relief based on facts already pled.

During a trial regarding a commercial lease dispute, the plaintiff sought to introduce a 'With Prejudice' settlement offer it had previously served on the defendant.

The defendant objected to its admission on the basis of settlement privilege.

The court applied the three-part test for settlement privilege and held that the label 'With Prejudice' does not change the character of a communication made in furtherance of settlement.

The court ruled the offer was privileged and inadmissible under Rule 49.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

This case concerns a criminal trial where the accused, Eden Gidharry, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and carrying concealed weapons but not guilty to attempted murder.

The court, sitting without a jury, assessed whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill the victim during a violent attack with samurai swords.

The court considered the premeditated nature of the attack, the target, the severity and location of the victim's injuries, and the accused's utterances, ultimately concluding that the intent to murder was established.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a Delaware limited liability company.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, claiming impecuniosity.

The court found that the defendant met the initial onus under Rule 56.01(1) as the plaintiff resided outside Ontario and lacked sufficient assets in the province.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold to establish impecuniosity, as it did not provide full financial disclosure regarding its principals' assets and ability to raise funds.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post security for costs in tranches.

The defendants First Student Canada, David Ribble, 1853780 Ontario Inc. o/a Kee to Bala, and Ryan Zaroski sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for damages arising from an assault on Ryan Turcotte.

The assault occurred in a parking lot after Turcotte disembarked from a chartered bus service provided by the defendants.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, Liquor Licence Act, and general negligence.

The court found no evidence that the defendants failed in their duty of care regarding premises safety, bus security, or intoxication monitoring.

The court also rejected allegations that the defendants should have diverted the bus, prevented Turcotte or the assailants from leaving, or provided more explicit warnings, concluding that Turcotte was aware of the potential danger.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against the moving defendants.