Bradley Jackson

A construction company sought payment for work completed on two properties: a commercial dealership and a residential home.

The dealership work was completed under a fixed-price contract for $98,739.83, with an outstanding balance of $33,327.73.

The residential work was completed on a time-and-materials basis with an outstanding balance of $43,743.37.

The defendants disputed liability, claiming deficient work and unfair business practices.

The court found that the residential contract, though not in writing, was enforceable under the Consumer Protection Act's equitable exception, as the defendant was a sophisticated businessman who had directed billing practices to benefit his businesses.

The court awarded the contractor the full amount for the dealership project and substantially the full amount for the residential project, offset by a modest counterclaim award for deficient work.

The plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendant seeking damages for breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay the action.

The motion was dismissed.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs as the successful responding parties.

The key issue involved a forum selection clause in the contract that the defendant sought to enforce, requiring litigation to occur in Texas.

The court found that the forum selection clause did not survive the defendant's unilateral termination of the contract due to the "surviving clauses" provision not including it.

The plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs of $13,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the applicant's application and the granting of the counter-application.

The court assessed costs on a partial indemnity basis, considering the complexity of the proceeding, the importance of the issues, the parties' conduct, and a Rule 49 settlement offer.

The applicant's unreasonable conduct in including an unnecessary party and taking an untenable position regarding the property value influenced the costs award.

The court rejected the applicant's proposed costs as arbitrary and unreasonable.

This decision concerns a dispute over the ownership of a commercial property and business shares following the death of John Morrison.

The applicant, Nancy Morrison (as estate trustee), sought partition and sale of the property, while the respondent, Tomasz Gadomski, claimed he had purchased the estate’s interest in both the property and the business under a 2016 Share Purchase Agreement (SPA).

The court found that the parties intended a single agreement covering both the shares and the property, and that Gadomski had fulfilled his obligations.

The application for partition and sale was dismissed, and Gadomski was declared the sole owner of the property.

Olavo Williams-Cordeiro was convicted of careless driving causing death in the context of a street race on Highway 403, where his vehicle was driven at speeds between 141-193 km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone.

The race culminated in a fatal collision involving a motorcycle driven by Mr. Chen.

The court considered aggravating factors including the street racing context, the defendant’s troubling driving record with multiple speeding convictions post-incident, and the need for general and specific deterrence.

Mitigating factors included the defendant’s remorse, youth, difficult upbringing, and positive family support.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 9 months, followed by 18 months probation with conditions including a prohibition on driving, and a four-year driving prohibition.

The defendant, Ferrovial Services Canada Limited, brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay the action commenced by the plaintiffs, JLPM and Dwight Anthony Jr., in Ontario.

The motion was based on a forum selection clause (FSC) in their subcontract, which stipulated Travis County, Texas, as the exclusive venue for judicial proceedings.

The court first determined that the FSC survived the termination of the contract and was valid, clear, and enforceable.

However, the court then applied the "strong cause" test, considering factors such as the location of evidence, applicable law, parties' connections to jurisdictions, and potential prejudice.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs demonstrated "strong cause" not to enforce the FSC, primarily due to the parties' closer connection to Ontario and the application of Ontario law.

Consequently, the defendant's motion was dismissed, and Ontario was deemed the convenient forum.

The defendant, Nathaniel Dillon, was charged with two counts of breaching a no-attend term of bail.

The trial involved conflicting testimony from the complainant and the defendant.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses, finding the complainant's evidence believable and accurate, while largely rejecting the defendant's testimony due to its performative aspect, flippant manner, and lack of plausibility.

The court found that the defendant intentionally remained in the complainant's presence on two separate occasions despite knowing he was breaching his bail conditions.

Consequently, the defendant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on both counts.

The plaintiff contractor brought an action to enforce a construction lien for unpaid invoices related to the installation of windows and doors at the defendants' home and detached garage.

The defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation, alleging the work was defective and incomplete.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the contractor had substantially completed the work and that the defendants fundamentally breached the contracts by refusing to pay the balance owing.

The court dismissed the defendants' counterclaim, finding no negligence or misrepresentation, and awarded the plaintiff $31,579.01 on a quantum meruit basis.

The applicants sought to remove their brother as their mother's Power of Attorney for Personal Care, alleging he failed to fulfill his duties by restricting their access to her, relocating her without consultation, and failing to act in her best interests.

The court found no evidence of misconduct or neglect, noting the respondent acted in accordance with the mother's wishes for privacy and made reasonable decisions regarding her care.

The application to remove the respondent was dismissed, but the court ordered him to provide an informal accounting of the mother's finances to reduce family conflict.

The respondents (Stewart and her business) brought a motion seeking an order to cross-examine the applicant's affiants and for leave to file their own affidavit evidence at a later time.

They argued that their right to silence in ongoing Provincial Offences Act proceedings justified delaying the filing of their evidence.

The applicant (Health Unit) did not oppose cross-examination but contended that the respondents must first file their affidavits as required by Rule 39.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondents failed to meet the test for advance leave under Rule 39.02(2).

The judge held that the right to silence in quasi-criminal proceedings did not outweigh the prejudice to the applicant or justify circumventing the civil procedural rules, which require parties to put all relevant evidence forward before cross-examination to ensure fundamental fairness and efficiency.

This ruling addresses an application by the prosecution to prematurely end the cross-examination of a complainant (R.C.) in a youth criminal trial involving sexual offences.

R.C., a 19-year-old pregnant witness, experienced severe distress, including suicidal ideation and physical illness, after one hour of cross-examination.

The defence opposed, arguing for the importance of cross-examination to explore potential collusion among complainants.

Applying the Hart test, the court found R.C.'s inability to continue testifying to be a valid reason, accepting her claims of mental and physical distress and potential risk to her pregnancy.

The court determined that the prejudice to the defence's fair trial rights was minimal, given that the issue of collusion had been partially explored and could be further addressed through other witnesses and ameliorative actions.

The application to discontinue R.C.'s cross-examination was granted.

The Young Person, I.M.B., brought an application to sever one count of sexual assault from six other counts involving three stepsisters, arguing prejudice, lack of legal/factual nexus, and an intention to testify solely on the severed count.

The prosecution opposed, citing a legal and factual nexus and the viability of a cross-count similar fact application.

The court, applying the "interests of justice" criteria from R. v. Last, found that while general prejudice and tactical considerations slightly favored severance, the significant viability of a similar fact application and the truth-seeking function of the trial weighed against it.

The application for severance was dismissed.