Bonnie Roberts Jones

The respondents brought motions for an order requiring the appellant to post security for costs on appeal.

The appellant was injured while running on an indoor track at McMaster University and sued for negligence and breach of statutory duty.

Following a three-week trial, the jury found the Flying Angels Running Club and George Kerr 60% liable, with the appellant 40% contributorily negligent.

The appellant was awarded damages of $101,885 but was required to pay substantial costs to the defendants.

The motions judge granted the security for costs motions, finding that although the appeal was not frivolous and vexatious, security was warranted under the applicable rules considering the appellant's non-resident status, the weak merits of the appeal, and the appellant's demonstrated financial capacity to post security.

The plaintiff purchased a landlocked commercial property with the intention of developing it.

The property abutted a Home Depot, which had a site plan control agreement with the City requiring it to negotiate a reciprocal access agreement with the abutting property owner if required.

The plaintiff sued the City and Home Depot, alleging they frustrated its development by delaying or denying access, claiming negligence, nuisance, breach of contract, and proprietary estoppel.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motions and dismissed the action, finding that many of the plaintiff's claims were not properly pleaded, the City owed no duty of care to preserve access, no negligent misrepresentations were made, and Home Depot acted in good faith in negotiating the access agreement, which was inherently complex and conditional.

The plaintiff law firm sued to recover outstanding legal fees and disbursements for services rendered on four different litigation matters between April and November 2016.

The defendants disputed the fairness and reasonableness of the fees, alleging substandard work and excessive hours.

The court, acting as if it were an assessment under the Solicitors Act, found the fees to be fair and reasonable, considering the complexity, urgency, importance to the client, skill demonstrated, and results achieved.

The court rejected the defendants' claims of poor advice and lack of value, noting the client's sophistication and awareness of accumulating costs.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for the outstanding balance plus interest.

The appellant sought to bring a class action against BP for secondary market misrepresentation under the Securities Act.

The motion judge found that eleven of fourteen alleged misrepresentations were statute-barred under the three-year limitation period in section 138.14 of the Act.

The appellant argued that section 138.3(6), which permits the court to treat multiple misrepresentations as a single misrepresentation, should extend the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that section 138.3(6) does not modify the event-triggered limitation period and was enacted to limit, not expand, liability.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) for a declaration that the plaintiff's proposed class action claims for secondary market misrepresentations under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act were statute-barred.

The court found that 11 of the 14 alleged misrepresentations occurred more than three years before the action was commenced and were therefore statute-barred under s. 138.14.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that s. 138.3(6) could save the claims by treating them as a single continuous misrepresentation.

However, the court found that the remaining three misrepresentation claims were not necessarily statute-barred, as the plaintiff had served a notice of motion for leave before the limitation period expired, allowing for potential reliance on the nunc pro tunc doctrine.

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act for a proposed securities class action.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misrepresented the company's ability to maintain its dividend, causing shareholders and debenture-holders to sustain losses when the dividend was cut.

The court dismissed the leave motion, finding no reasonable possibility that the secondary market misrepresentation claims would succeed at trial, as the defendants' statements were based on a genuine belief in their growth strategy at the time.

The court also dismissed the certification motion, holding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure for the remaining common law negligent misrepresentation claims, which require individualized proof of reliance.

The court addressed three issues regarding the distribution of proceeds from the sale of properties by a court-appointed Sales Officer.

The court approved the Sales Officer's recommendation to reduce the general reserve and distribute funds following the closing of two properties.

The court also directed that future costs of the Sales Officer be allocated to the sole remaining property.

Finally, the court declined to eliminate or reduce a $7.5 million Settlement Liquidity Holdback, maintaining it to ensure liquidity for accounting adjustments and to incentivize the parties to advance the long-standing family litigation.

The applicant company sought an order to terminate a supplementary retirement plan trust fund and have the remaining assets distributed to it.

The trust fund was established to ensure employees transferred from a predecessor company would not be adversely affected regarding their pension entitlements.

The trustee refused to consent to the termination, citing a lack of evidence that the participants had received their full entitlements.

The court dismissed the company's application, finding that at least one participant had demonstrated a shortfall, and directed the trustee to obtain actuarial calculations for other participants before any remaining balance could be returned to the company.

The plaintiffs, former employees of GMA Cover Corp., were summarily terminated without notice or compensation following a complex corporate reorganization.

They brought an action claiming the various corporate defendants were common employers and moved for a Mareva injunction to prevent the sale or encumbrance of the defendants' only remaining asset in Ontario, a property in Guelph.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case on the merits of the common employer claim and satisfied the test for a Mareva injunction, inferring an intent by the defendants to frustrate the plaintiffs' claims.

The motion for a Mareva injunction was granted.

The applicant sought enforcement in Ontario of letters rogatory issued by a court in Alabama to compel oral examinations of two Ontario residents for use in a U.S. class action proceeding concerning lender‑placed insurance fees.

The intervener, a defendant in the foreign proceeding, opposed the request on the basis that the proposed evidence would be duplicative, unnecessary, and obtainable elsewhere.

The court considered the statutory framework under the Evidence Act and the Canada Evidence Act, along with the discretionary factors governing enforcement of foreign letters of request.

The court found that the preconditions for enforcement were met and that the witnesses likely possessed relevant and unique firsthand knowledge not otherwise obtainable.

In light of international comity and the relevance of the proposed evidence, the court enforced the letters rogatory and ordered the examinations to proceed.