Bernadette Dietrich

The appellant appealed a Master's order requiring it to pay security for costs.

The Master had found that the appellant, a foreign corporation, had insufficient assets in Ontario and failed to demonstrate impecuniosity on a balance of probabilities due to inadequate financial disclosure and credibility issues with its principal.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review and found no basis to interfere with the Master's assessment of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant contractor brought a Rule 21 motion to dismiss the plaintiff owner's action for faulty workmanship.

The construction contract contained a covenant requiring the owner to purchase property insurance covering damage resulting from defective workmanship and to name the contractor as an insured.

The court held that this covenant to insure operated as a voluntary assumption of risk by the owner, relieving the contractor of liability for damages caused by its negligence or breach of contract.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for alleged Charter breaches, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff argued for no costs on the basis that the case was pursued in the public interest.

The defendant sought a modest costs award, noting the plaintiff's decision to traverse the action from Small Claims Court to the Superior Court and his rejection of two Rule 49 offers to settle.

The court awarded the defendant $25,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, taking into account the early offers to settle and the plaintiff's assumption of risk.

The plaintiff sought costs following a successful summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action.

The court had previously awarded the plaintiff eight months' notice and a pro-rated bonus, totaling $106,883.02.

The plaintiff requested costs of $71,701.63 on a mixed partial and substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The defendant argued the requested costs were excessive and disproportionate, suggesting $20,000.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 factors and the principle of proportionality, found the plaintiff's counsel's time spent disproportionate to the case's complexity, despite the plaintiff's success and a favourable offer to settle.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $35,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff, Luke Stewart, sued the Toronto Police Services Board for alleged violations of his Charter rights (freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, arbitrary detention, unreasonable search and seizure) during the 2010 G20 summit.

Stewart was briefly detained and his backpack searched after he breached a police perimeter at Allan Gardens, which had been established with a condition of entry requiring bag inspections for weapons due to security concerns.

The court found that the police acted lawfully and reasonably under the Trespass to Property Act and their common law powers to maintain public safety.

It concluded that Stewart's Charter rights were not infringed, and even if they were, such infringements were reasonable and demonstrably justified in the unique circumstances of the G20 protest demonstrations.

The action was dismissed.

The moving parties (defendants) brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim against the defendant David Rosenkrantz, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs alleged negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract against Rosenkrantz in his capacity as an officer and director of the Patica Companies, relating to a tax deferral arrangement.

The court found the pleadings lacked the necessary material facts to pierce the corporate veil or establish personal liability, negligent misrepresentation, or an agency relationship.

The court struck the claim and the related crossclaim against Rosenkrantz, but granted leave to amend.

The applicants, a private management company and a school board, sought a declaration that a sports facility operated by the company on school board land was exempt from property tax.

The municipal assessment corporation had assessed the land as taxable, arguing the company was a tenant.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the licence agreement between the company and the school board created a landlord-tenant relationship.

The company satisfied the essential elements for rateable occupation, including actual occupation, exclusivity, value, and permanence.

Consequently, the land was not exempt from taxation under the Assessment Act.

The defendant solicitor brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims against him for damages for an improvident sale and for an accounting of sale proceeds.

The plaintiffs, who were third mortgagees, conceded the improvident sale claim against the solicitor.

However, they maintained the claim for an accounting, arguing the solicitor owed a duty to disburse funds honestly and account to subsequent encumbrancers under the Mortgages Act.

The court found the accounting claim was not doomed to fail and dismissed the motion to strike it, but ordered that the claim against the solicitor would be struck if he provided the accounting within 10 days.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The core issue was the enforceability of a termination clause that the plaintiff argued contracted out of the Employment Standards Act (ESA) by failing to explicitly provide for severance and benefit continuation.

The court found the termination clause unenforceable because it potentially provided less than the ESA minimums.

The plaintiff was awarded 8 months' reasonable notice at common law and compensation for lost bonuses during the notice period, as the bonuses were found to be an integral, non-discretionary part of his compensation.

The claim for lost benefits was dismissed due to a lack of evidence of actual loss.

The plaintiff, a former Olympic alpine skier, brought a motion for summary judgment against her former tax lawyer and his firm for professional negligence.

The defendants had advised the plaintiff to participate in an aggressive offshore tax plan to wind up her amateur athletic trust, which the Canada Revenue Agency later deemed a sham.

The Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment on liability, finding that the defendants breached their duty of care by failing to warn the plaintiff of the significant legal risks associated with the plan.

The court held that expert evidence was not required to establish the standard of care because the duty to warn was clear, and directed that the issue of damages proceed to trial.

The plaintiff school brought an action for defamation against two former students and their paralegal based on an email the paralegal sent to York University inquiring about the school's relationship with the university.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing the email was protected by absolute privilege.

The court granted the motion, finding that the email was a reasonable pre-litigation communication made in the course of investigating the clients' claims and was therefore protected by absolute privilege.

The defendant, Sonia Hakimi, brought a motion to set aside a default judgment, vacate a notice of garnishment and writ, remove derogatory credit bureau reports, and for costs.

Hakimi acknowledged her indebtedness to the plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada, but argued she withheld payments pending clarification on how they would be applied.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside default judgments, finding that while the motion was brought promptly, Hakimi failed to establish a plausible explanation for default or an arguable defence on the merits.

Her affidavit merely asserted a defence without supporting evidence.

Consequently, the motion was dismissed without costs.