Barry L. Evans

The decision addresses a dispute over a jury verdict in a civil action brought by Andrew Sanayhie against the Durham Regional Police Services Board and two officers.

The plaintiff alleged wrongful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution.

The jury's initial verdict was inconsistent, awarding damages for malicious prosecution despite finding no malice.

The court sent the jury back for clarification, and the second verdict found malice and again awarded damages.

The court held that it was appropriate to seek clarification from the jury before discharge, dismissed the defendants’ motion for judgment in their favour, and entered judgment for the plaintiff on malicious prosecution and legal expenses.

The court considered whether a key police witness, Officer Jonathan Hood, should be permitted to testify virtually due to psychological health concerns.

The plaintiff objected, arguing in-person testimony was necessary for the jury to assess credibility and demeanor.

The court reviewed the relevant Rules of Civil Procedure and expert evidence from Dr. Christine Hansen, ultimately concluding that the balance of convenience favoured allowing virtual testimony in light of Officer Hood’s diagnosed PTSD and related conditions.

The defendant brought a motion seeking to transfer an action from Oshawa to Toronto, either to be tried together with an existing Toronto action or as a standalone transfer.

The plaintiff opposed the motion and delivered notice of intent to make oral argument.

The court, noting that the motion sought additional relief beyond a simple transfer and that the plaintiff had requested an oral hearing under Rule 37.12.1(5)(d), ordered that the defendant's motion be set down for an oral hearing before a judge in the Toronto Region.

The appellant, a commercial property owner, was convicted of infractions under the Ontario Fire Code for permitting a private school to operate on the premises without compliance with fire safety regulations.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the private school was regulated by the Education Act and therefore exempt from the Ontario Fire Code under section 9.2.1.2 of Regulation 213/07.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the private school was not governed by the Education Act because no notice of intention to operate had been filed as required by section 16(1) of the Education Act.

The court found that the burden of proof rested on the appellant to establish the exemption and that a factual finding at trial could not substitute for the express statutory requirement of filing a notice of intention.

The plaintiff brought an action against his sister, the defendant, alleging she misappropriated funds from their late father's estate while acting as his power of attorney.

The plaintiff sought over $800,000, claiming their father lacked capacity to make inter vivos gifts and was subjected to undue influence.

The court found that the father had the requisite capacity to make the gifts, initiated them independently, and was not under the defendant's undue influence.

The court also approved the passing of accounts prepared by an independent accountant, dismissing the plaintiff's claims for damages and ordering him to pay $150,000 in costs.