Breese Davies

The Canadian Constitution Foundation challenged the constitutionality of section 91(1) of the Canada Elections Act, which prohibited making or publishing false statements about political figures with the intent to affect election results.

The provision was amended in 2018 to remove the word 'knowingly'.

The applicant argued this amendment rendered the provision an unjustifiable infringement on freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter.

The court held that the removal of 'knowingly' was a substantive change, meaning the offence no longer required proof that the statement was known to be false.

Without this knowledge element, the provision failed the minimal impairment test under section 1 of the Charter.

Consequently, section 91(1) of the Canada Elections Act was declared to be of no force or effect.

This decision addresses the calculation of damages for wrongful dismissal and the award of costs following a successful summary judgment motion.

The court determined the final damages amount, excluding cell phone and internet costs from the notice period compensation.

It also awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis to the date of the Rule 49 offer and substantial indemnity thereafter, finding the plaintiff's offer more favourable than the judgment.

The defendant, Prince Adjei-Boateng, was charged with trafficking heroin and possession of proceeds of crime following an undercover police investigation.

The Crown alleged he was the supplier for a drug dealer, Michael Patania.

The court considered the admissibility of co-conspirator statements and the defendant's spontaneous exculpatory statement.

Despite strong circumstantial evidence, the court found reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the evidence, corroboration of the defendant's alternative explanation (used car parts business), and the police's failure to examine seized cell phones for direct communication between the defendant and the drug dealer.

The defendant was acquitted on all charges.

Following an earlier summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, the court released an addendum addressing inadvertent errors, the employee's entitlement to bonus compensation during the common law notice period, mitigation deductions, and costs.

Applying the governing appellate authorities on bonus entitlement, the court held that an active employment requirement did not unambiguously remove the employee's right to damages in lieu of bonus during the notice period where the bonus was an integral part of compensation.

The court calculated the future bonus component by averaging the employee's bonuses over the prior three years, deducted a comparable vehicle benefit obtained in replacement employment, and fixed total damages at $178,879.98.

Partial indemnity costs plus disbursements were awarded in the amount of $43,879.63.

S.S. appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board that found her incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

S.S. argued the Board applied an incorrect legal test by focusing on her best interests and failed to consider evidence supporting her capacity.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly applied the legal test, which requires assessing a patient's ability to understand information and appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their decision, not whether they act in their best interests.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the Board's assessment of the evidence regarding S.S.'s capacity to appreciate the consequences of refusing treatment, despite her understanding of medication side effects.

The plaintiff, a senior executive, was terminated without cause after nearly four years of employment.

He brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal damages.

The court found the termination clause in his employment contract unenforceable because it had the potential to provide less than the minimum termination and severance pay required under the Canada Labour Code.

The court awarded eight months' pay in lieu of notice, finding the plaintiff held a significant managerial role.

The court also awarded damages for a discretionary bonus for 2017 and the notice period, as it was an integral part of his compensation, but dismissed claims for unused vacation and statutory holiday pay.

The applicant church sought an interim injunction to exempt it from O. Reg. 82/20, which restricted religious gatherings to a maximum of ten people in regions designated as Stage 1 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The church argued the regulation infringed its freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the church established a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm.

However, the court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, as the public interest in protecting health and preventing the spread of COVID-19 outweighed the temporary restriction on the church's religious freedom.

The application for an interim injunction was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Tribute (Simcoe Street) Limited, brought a motion for default judgment against defendant Xiao Ping Huang for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a townhouse condominium.

Ms. Huang, who was assigned the APS, failed to take possession on the scheduled occupancy date and subsequently did not file a statement of defence, leading to her being noted in default.

The court found Ms. Huang in breach of the APS and awarded the plaintiff damages totaling $87,678.21, representing the difference between the original purchase price and the resale price, unpaid occupancy fees, and other related costs and interest.

The court also awarded costs on a full indemnity basis as stipulated in the APS but declined to apply the contractual post-judgment interest rate, instead applying the statutory rate, citing a lack of evidence that the clause was brought to Ms. Huang's attention and a significant power imbalance.

The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action appealed a Master's decision upholding a defendant doctor's refusal to answer certain hypothetical questions during his examination for discovery.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master correctly ruled that the doctor was not required to answer hypothetical questions based on factual premises he disputed, nor questions that indirectly asked him to opine on the standard of care or decisions of other medical professionals involved in the infant plaintiff's care.

The 87-year-old defendant, who had significant health issues, brought a motion to give his evidence before trial outside of court and to present his evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit.

The plaintiff consented to the pre-trial video examination but opposed the use of an affidavit, arguing it would be 'counsel created evidence' and unfair in a case where credibility was central.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's concerns could be adequately addressed through cross-examination and that the accommodation was appropriate given the defendant's health.

The plaintiff, Enercare, brought a motion to strike the defendant Grand HVAC's counterclaim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The counterclaim alleged breach of contract and conversion regarding water heaters Grand HVAC claimed to have purchased from Enercare, and sought relief on behalf of customers.

The court granted the motion, finding the breach of contract and conversion claims lacked necessary material facts, but granted leave to amend.

Claims seeking relief on behalf of third-party customers were struck without leave to amend.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' common employer claim, strike certain allegations as scandalous, and sever the plaintiffs' wrongful dismissal claims.

The court found that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded facts supporting the common employer claim, including integrated operations and common control.

The court also held that allegations of the defendants diverting funds were relevant to the common employer analysis and not scandalous.

Finally, the court refused to sever the claims, finding that a joint trial on the common employer issue would be more efficient and avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The defendants' motions were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims for constructive dismissal, wrongful dismissal, discrimination, and bad faith, arguing they were new claims advanced after the limitation period expired.

The plaintiff had originally issued a Notice of Action including these claims, but the subsequent Statement of Claim focused on an independent contractor relationship.

The court found that the original Statement of Claim contained the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action, and the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim simply asserted different legal conclusions from those facts.

The motion to strike was dismissed.

At a case management hearing, the court provided procedural directions for an upcoming two-day trial.

Due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, the respondent's father, residing in Ukraine, was unable to travel to Canada.

The court ordered a hybrid trial, allowing the father to testify via video while other witnesses would testify in person, subject to courtroom availability and pandemic restrictions.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' 2019 statement of claim, arguing it was based on information obtained during discovery in a related 2018 action.

The court found that the plaintiffs breached the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure by using discovery evidence to launch a new proceeding rather than seeking to amend the existing claim.

The motion to strike was granted, with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings to remove references to protected information.

The plaintiff vendor brought a default judgment motion after the defendant purchaser failed to close on a new home purchase agreement and was noted in default.

The court held the motion could proceed ex parte because the defendant had notice and a fair opportunity to respond, including an opportunity to move to set aside the noting in default.

On the admitted facts and affidavit evidence, the court found a breach of the agreement of purchase and sale and awarded damages consisting of the resale price differential, contractual legal fees, carrying costs, administrative fees, and contractual interest.

Substantial indemnity costs were refused because the defendant's conduct was not sufficiently reprehensible, and partial indemnity costs were awarded.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim for restitution for unjust enrichment and disgorgement of profits, and a motion to bifurcate the trial on liability and damages.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants breached a settlement agreement regarding the market entry date of a generic drug.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the pleaded facts were capable of supporting the restitutionary claims.

The court granted the motion to bifurcate, finding exceptional circumstances justified separating the liability issues from the complex quantification of damages.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board upholding his treating physician's finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

The appellant argued he did not have a mental illness and his beliefs about being persecuted by foreign intelligence were real.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the Board did not err in concluding the appellant suffered from a delusional disorder and that his complete lack of insight into his condition rendered him incapable of appreciating the consequences of refusing treatment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old victim.

The Crown sought a sentence of three to four years, while the defence argued for 12 months.

The court found the victim's age and vulnerability to be significant aggravating factors, but noted the offender's youth, community support, and remorse as mitigating factors.

The court sentenced the offender to two years less a day in custody, followed by two years of probation.

The court granted credit for pre-sentence custody on these charges but denied credit for time spent in custody on unrelated charges.

This decision provides supplementary reasons regarding a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The applicants, 10381187 Canada Inc. and Elias Markos, leased a property from the respondent, Elena Cherny, for short-term rentals.

After the City of Toronto issued an Order to Comply due to illegal construction, Cherny prevented the applicants' access.

The applicants sought specific performance and damages, registering a CPL.

Cherny moved to discharge the CPL.

The court had previously ruled that specific performance was not an available remedy as damages were adequate.

In these supplementary reasons, the court declined to add a condition to the CPL discharge order to preserve the applicants' right of first refusal, reaffirming that specific performance was unavailable because the property was not unique and damages were an adequate remedy.