Brendan Fitzpatrick Morrison

The applicant cattle producer sought judicial review of a decision by Agricorp, which accepted a recommendation from the Business Risk Management Review Committee that weight gain for cattle occurring outside Ontario was ineligible for benefits under the Risk Management Program.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that Agricorp's interpretation of the governing Order in Council and Guidelines was reasonable, as the provisions consistently emphasized 'production in Ontario'.

The court also found no procedural unfairness, noting the applicant had a full opportunity to make submissions and the Committee's reliance on the definition of 'Farmer' did not constitute a new issue.

The appellants, triplets born with serious disabilities, appealed the dismissal of their negligence claim against a physician who prescribed a fertility drug to their mother pre-conception.

They alleged the physician failed to provide informed consent and prescribed a contraindicated medication.

The Court of Appeal, in a majority decision, dismissed the appeal, affirming that a physician does not owe a duty of care to a future child for alleged negligence occurring pre-conception, citing policy concerns regarding conflicting duties and women's autonomy.

The dissenting judge argued that the allegation of a contraindicated drug could distinguish the case and warrant a full trial to determine if a novel duty of care exists.

The plaintiffs commenced a third separate action in Toronto against neonatal care professionals and a hospital for injuries sustained by a newborn, having already commenced two actions in Brampton for the same injuries arising from a car accident and birthing care.

The defendants moved to dismiss the Toronto action as an abuse of process, arguing the plaintiffs should have sought leave to add them to the existing Brampton actions.

The court agreed, finding the separate action was a tactical maneuver to avoid the leave requirement and potential limitation period defences.

The court stayed the Toronto action pending a motion to amend in Brampton, while strongly criticizing the parties for engaging in costly and delaying procedural disputes contrary to the culture shift mandated by Hryniak.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal by Subway against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in an anti-SLAPP motion.

Subway sought partial indemnity costs of $61,291.30.

CBC requested reconsideration of the costs award based on Supreme Court of Canada anti-SLAPP decisions (Pointes and Bent) or a reduction to $17,000.

The Court of Appeal upheld its decision to award partial indemnity costs, distinguishing the case from Bent due to the availability of substantial judicial guidance on s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act prior to CBC's motion, and the significant costs incurred by Subway.

The court awarded Subway $40,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an interim order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the corporate respondents.

The plaintiffs, Daniele Marthe Hutterli and Charles Hutterli, brought a medical negligence action against Dr. Douglas Scott, alleging he failed to meet the standard of care in assessing Mrs. Hutterli's ankle injury.

Mrs. Hutterli sustained an ankle fracture but was misdiagnosed with a sprain, leading to delayed treatment.

The plaintiffs claimed increased cartilage damage and higher risk of osteoarthritis due to the delay.

The court found that Dr. Scott met the standard of care in applying the Ottawa Ankle Rules, despite the misdiagnosis, concluding it was an error in judgment, not negligence.

Furthermore, the court found the plaintiffs failed to prove causation or damages, as there was no evidence that the alleged harm (increased cartilage damage, osteoarthritis risk) was caused by the delay, rather than the original fracture, or that a better outcome would have resulted.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant brought a refusals motion in the context of an application for judicial review of decisions denying it financial support under an agricultural risk management program.

The applicant sought to compel the decision-makers to answer questions about who authored the decisions and who was involved in the deliberative process, arguing this was necessary to advance its claim of a denial of natural justice.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the questions were irrelevant to the pleaded natural justice ground and amounted to an unwarranted fishing expedition into deliberative privilege.

This appeal addressed the application of Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act) to a negligence claim.

Subway sued Trent University for negligence and defamation after Trent's testing of Subway's chicken products was featured on a CBC "Marketplace" broadcast.

The motion judge dismissed Trent's anti-SLAPP motion, finding the negligence claim did not arise from an expression.

The Court of Appeal allowed Trent's appeal, holding that the negligence claim did arise from an expression related to a matter of public interest.

Furthermore, the Court found that Subway's negligence claim lacked substantial merit because no duty of care existed between Trent and Subway, as there was no undertaking of responsibility by Trent in favour of Subway, nor any reliance by Subway on Trent's services or statements.

The motion judge's order was set aside, and Subway's negligence claim was dismissed.

The appellants, Subway, appealed the dismissal of their $210 million defamation action against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) under an anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

The action arose from a CBC Marketplace report alleging Subway's chicken products contained only 50% chicken DNA.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in applying a higher standard for the "no valid defence" test and in weighing the public interest.

The Court determined that Subway had established grounds to believe CBC had no valid defence of responsible communication and that the public interest in allowing the action to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression, given the significant reputational and financial harm alleged and the lack of urgency in disseminating unverified information.

The appeal was allowed, and the defamation action against CBC was permitted to continue.

The Toronto Islands Community Trust Corporation sought declaratory relief, an injunction, and fines against Peter McLaughlin and Steven Whitfield regarding the transfer of an Island home.

McLaughlin, aged 90, adopted Whitfield, aged 58, and then purported to transfer a half-interest in his home to Whitfield, relying on an exception in the Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act, 1993, which permits transfers to a "child" (including adopted child).

The Trust argued this circumvented the Act's purpose of restricting transfers.

The court, applying a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, found that given the genuine, long-standing familial relationship between McLaughlin and Whitfield, the transfer did not violate the spirit or purpose of the Act.

The court dismissed the Trust's application for declaratory relief, injunction, and fines, but awarded costs to the Trust for a previous motion and full indemnity costs to the respondents for the main application.

The plaintiff, who was rendered paraplegic following spinal surgery, brought a motion to amend his statement of claim to add his former family doctor and chiropractor as defendants, and to add new allegations against the defendant surgeon.

The surgeon brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding the delay was not contumelious and caused no actual prejudice.

The court denied the plaintiff's request to add new allegations against the surgeon, ruling they were statute-barred new causes of action.

However, the court allowed the addition of the family doctor and chiropractor, finding the claims against them were not reasonably discoverable until the plaintiff's counsel obtained and reviewed the family doctor's medical chart.

In a costs decision following a professional liability trial, the court determined that the defendants were the successful parties despite findings that they breached their fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs had sought over $16 million in damages but were only awarded $2,000 in nominal damages.

The court found the defendants' claimed costs of $1,261,235 to be reasonable, but reduced the award by 25% to reflect the court's finding of breach of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $925,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs sued their former law firm and former in-house counsel for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from a commercial transaction and subsequent settlement.

The court found that the former in-house counsel breached his fiduciary duty by acting for the opposing party at a mediation, and that the law firm breached its standard of care by failing to warn the plaintiffs of this conflict.

The court also found the law firm breached its fiduciary duty by obtaining an ineffective conflict waiver.

However, the court concluded that these breaches did not cause the plaintiffs' claimed business losses, as the plaintiffs would have settled regardless and suffered no loss of chance.

The court awarded nominal damages of $2,000.

An appeal from a summary judgment motion dismissing a claim for breach of confidence.

The appellant, a pharmaceutical company, alleged that the respondent misused confidential information regarding a potential equipment manufacturer (HED International) that was disclosed during a due diligence period for a failed asset purchase agreement.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding no detriment to the appellant.

The appellate court upheld the dismissal, finding that although the motion judge's approach to detriment was overly narrow, the appellant suffered no detriment as a matter of fact because it was not ready to manufacture its products and could not have benefited from direct access to the equipment manufacturer.

The parties disagreed on whether the judge should sign an order dismissing the plaintiff's prior certification and leave motions, or wait for the plaintiff's "motion for reconsideration." The plaintiff argued that signing the order might render the court functus officio, potentially precluding the reconsideration motion.

The defendant argued that the pronouncement of judgment was final and the order should be issued without delay.

The court decided to sign the order, issuing a fiat for its issuance and entry, clarifying that this decision did not determine the functus officio or abuse of process issues, which would be addressed in the context of the plaintiff's omnibus reconsideration motion.

Nobilis Health Corp. sought costs after successfully defending a class action certification motion and leave application brought by Vince Cappelli.

Nobilis requested $200,000 in partial indemnity fees and $311,696.39 in disbursements, primarily for three expert reports.

Cappelli did not oppose the fees but challenged the disbursements as excessive and duplicative.

The court found the expert evidence necessary and critical, despite some overlap, and deemed the disbursements fair and reasonable given the litigation risk.

Costs were awarded to Nobilis as requested, with the Class Proceedings Fund ultimately responsible for payment.

The plaintiff, 1085372 Ontario Limited, brought an action under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and the Fraudulent Conveyances Act (FCA) to set aside a transfer of shares in Linus Entertainment Inc. from Michael Shumak to Geoff Kulawick.

The plaintiff alleged the transfer was at undervalue or a fraudulent conveyance.

The court found that the parties dealt at arm's length, the transaction occurred outside the one-year clawback period under the BIA, and the transfer was not at undervalue.

Furthermore, the court found no fraudulent intent on the part of Shumak and that Kulawick acted in good faith and paid good consideration.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought leave under s. 138.8(1) of the Securities Act to bring a statutory cause of action for secondary market misrepresentation against the defendant corporation, and to certify the action as a class proceeding.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant made material misrepresentations in its financial statements, which were later restated.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the plaintiff had no reasonable possibility of success because the specific misrepresentations pleaded were not material to a reasonable investor, and the alleged corrective disclosure did not relate to the pleaded misrepresentations.

Consequently, the certification motion was also dismissed.

The court issued its third and final set of reasons following a hearing on June 27, 2018, confirming an interim ruling and addressing costs.

The court drew negative inferences against Greyslone Ltd., Belview Management Ltd., and Mr. Czerlau due to evasive conduct and lack of corporate authority, disallowing claims of privilege over solicitors' files.

It ordered all solicitors' files (Assuras, Lof, Brown) to be delivered to an Independent Supervising Solicitor for review and production of relevant documents to the plaintiff.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $19,878.53 against Mr. Czerlau, Greyslone Ltd., and Belview Management Ltd. jointly and severally, and partial indemnity costs of $13,626.70 against Ms. Assuras, also jointly and severally with the others to that extent.

The plaintiff, Canadian National Railway Company (CN), brought a motion to compel the production of files and examination for discovery of three non-party lawyers: Mr. Brown, Mr. Lof, and Ms. Assuras.

The motion arose from a Mareva and Anton Pillar order and a subsequent summary judgment against Greyslone and Belview, which were found to have no legal status at the time of certain transactions and failed to account for $661,000.

Ms. Assuras, counsel for Greyslone and Belview, opposed the motion, asserting privilege, while Mr. Lof and Mr. Brown took no position.

The court found Mr. Czerlau's (who instructed Ms. Assuras) testimony to be evasive and misleading, and inferred that Greyslone and Belview were not acting at arm's length to Mr. Holmes, suggesting they were shams.

Consequently, the court proposed to draw negative inferences against Greyslone and Belview's bona fides, disallow claims of privilege, and ordered the production of the entire files of Ms. Assuras, Mr. Lof, and Mr. Brown to the plaintiff, subject to a 14-day period for further submissions.