Calum U. C. MacLeod

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment in a civil action arising from the plaintiff's arrest and prosecution for assault during a family law dispute.

The plaintiff claimed malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of mental suffering, negligent investigation, false arrest, false imprisonment, and Charter violations against her ex-husband, the OPP officers, and the Crown.

The court found that the criminal proceedings were not terminated in the plaintiff's favour, as the charges were withdrawn pursuant to a diversion agreement, and there was no evidence of malice or investigative deficiency on the part of the police.

Against the ex-husband, the court found insufficient evidence of deliberate falsehood to police or malicious intent.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action against all defendants.

The applicant lender sought appointment of a court-appointed receiver over three parcels of vacant land owned by the guarantor to conduct a sale in satisfaction of a $10 million guarantee.

The respondent guarantor and first mortgagee resisted the receivership.

The court upheld the validity of the applicant's second mortgages despite the absence of the first mortgagee's consent, finding the consent requirement was not a true condition precedent and the authorization and direction was unconditional.

However, the court declined to appoint a receiver, finding it unnecessary given the limited nature of the assets and the absence of any business to operate or preserve.

The guarantor was permitted 90 days to effect a private sale, with the applicant retaining the right to return for further relief.

A law firm applied for approval of a contingency fee agreement, approval of accounts following termination of the retainer, and authorization to deduct fees and disbursements from funds held in trust.

The court also heard a motion for the firm to be removed as counsel of record after a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

While permitting the firm to withdraw from the record, the court declined to approve the contingency fee agreement or automatically enforce hourly rates triggered by termination.

Instead, the court held that the firm was entitled only to reasonable compensation for legal services and directed that the accounts be assessed in the ordinary manner under the Solicitors Act.

Fees relating to escrow agent services were found not to constitute legal services and therefore were not subject to assessment under that regime.

The defendant brought a motion to lift a stay and dismiss a proposed class proceeding commenced in 2008 that never advanced to the certification stage.

Parallel proceedings in British Columbia and Quebec had concluded with modest recoveries for narrow classes.

Plaintiff's counsel had lost contact with the nominal plaintiff and consented to dismissal.

The court dismissed the action for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding that the plaintiff had not moved for certification within the prescribed time.

The court required class counsel to publish notice of the dismissal on the firm's website but declined to order further notification steps, given the minor nature of the claims and the absence of any class member registry.

The moving party brought a motion for default judgment against all defendants except one who had defended the action.

A co-defendant objected to judgment against one of the undefended defendants on the basis that it might conflict with findings made in a related family law proceeding, where the trial judge had rejected the existence of an unregistered mortgage in favour of the plaintiff.

The court found that the consenting defendant's failure to defend and consent to judgment was operative against him personally, and that it did not bind the defending co-defendant.

Judgment was granted against the consenting defendant without prejudice to the defending defendant's right to crossclaim, move to stay enforcement, or oppose recognition of the debt in any bankruptcy proceeding.

In a Rule 76 wrongful dismissal and misrepresentation action, the court determined a dispute over whether mandatory mediation should proceed in person or by videoconference.

The court held that Rule 1.08(8) contemplates efficient direction at a case conference and does not support burdensome motion practice over mode of attendance.

On the evidentiary record, there was no objective basis to find that in-person mediation would be more effective than virtual mediation.

Emphasizing proportionality, cost-effectiveness, and current civil practice realities, the court directed that mediation proceed by videoconference, with a hybrid format permitted if all participants agree.

No costs were awarded.

Motion to certify a multi-jurisdictional class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act arising from a cybersecurity breach at Investorcom Holdings ULC affecting personal information held by Mackenzie Financial Corporation.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence, breach of contract, and fiduciary duty by both defendants in failing to adequately secure sensitive personal information including social insurance numbers.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding, finding the pleadings disclosed plausible causes of action in negligence, contract, and fiduciary duty.

The court declined to certify claims under provincial privacy statutes due to jurisdictional limitations and the requirement of willful conduct, but permitted reliance on such statutes as material facts.

The court certified a national class proceeding without carving out members from other provinces, pending the outcome of a parallel British Columbia class action.

The plaintiff hired the defendants to convert a carport into an enclosed garage for $62,000.

The defendants falsely represented that no building permit was required and that the work would comply with applicable codes.

The structure was built without a permit and was structurally deficient.

Upon inspection by a professional engineer, the structure was found to be unfit for purpose and was demolished.

The defendants failed to appear at trial after initially retaining counsel and preparing responding material.

The court struck the defence and proceeded with an uncontested trial.

Judgment was rendered in favour of the plaintiff for the full contract price, demolition costs, engineering fees, and damages for inconvenience and interference with use of property.

The applicant sought entitlement to life insurance proceeds to reimburse expenses for her father's care prior to his death.

The respondent sought removal of the applicant from her positions as estate trustee and trustee of a trust holding corporate shares, and challenged the validity of the deceased's will and trust provisions.

The court found the applicant entitled to the insurance proceeds based on a binding agreement, upheld the validity of the will and trust, declined to remove the applicant as director or estate trustee, but removed her as trustee of the shares due to conflict of interest.

A personal injury action arising from a 12-year-old plaintiff leaping from a balcony in community housing after an intruder forced his way into her apartment.

The defendants moved to strike portions of the statement of claim and to compel further production of documents.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the pleadings relevant to establishing foreseeability and duty of care.

The court granted the motion for further affidavits of documents but directed the parties to engage in collaborative discovery planning under Rule 29.1 before compliance.

No costs awarded due to divided success.

The decision addresses a high-conflict parenting dispute involving allegations of sexual abuse and parental alienation.

The court finds that the mother, Melanie Lynn Grillo, alienated the child, Zaria, from her father, Edwin Adam Lawrence Newton, and orders an immediate change of primary residence to the father, with the mother’s parenting time to be expanded at the father’s discretion.

The court finds the abuse allegations unsubstantiated and details the evidence of alienation, referencing leading case law on parental alienation and the best interests of the child.

The court considered a motion by the respondent, Robert Paul Ireland, to set aside a default judgment granted in favour of the Ontario Federation of All Terrain Vehicle Clubs.

The judgment, issued after Ireland failed to attend the hearing, declared certain statements made by him on Facebook to be defamatory and ordered their removal.

Ireland argued he did not attend due to accident, mistake, or insufficient notice.

The court found that he was properly served, aware of the proceedings, and intentionally chose not to participate.

The motion to set aside the judgment was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought to amend her claim to proceed under Rule 76 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, capping damages at $200,000, after the action had been set down for a jury trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the prejudice to the defendant too great and the timing of the amendment to be an abuse of process.

The decision discusses the availability of accommodations for disabled litigants, the prejudice inherent in late procedural changes, and the tactical nature of the plaintiff’s request.

This decision concerns an anti-SLAPP motion brought by the defendants, Trinitee Okoye and Olivia Singaye, seeking to stay or dismiss a defamation action by the plaintiffs, Reynolds Okoh, Axel Mensah, and 2357392 Ontario Inc. o/a The Palace Ottawa.

The court found that the impugned social media posts did not constitute expression on a matter of public interest within the meaning of section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Even if the threshold were met, the court held that the action had substantial merit and the defences of justification and fair comment were unlikely to succeed.

The motion was dismissed.

This decision concerns a dispute within the Kidus Gabriel Eritrean Orthodox Tewahdo Church in Ottawa regarding the legitimacy of the board of directors and control over church property.

The Applicants challenged the 2023 board election, alleging irregularities and interference by non-members aligned with a rival synod.

The court ordered a supervised special meeting to elect a new board, established a process for determining eligible voters, and mandated the reopening of the church for worship, with access for both parties pending the election.

The court granted a motion to remove D. Kenneth Gibson and Gibson LLP as counsel of record for Wildpine Residence Inc. in a construction lien proceeding, due to Mr. Gibson's role as a key material witness at trial.

The decision addresses the conflict between a lawyer's role as advocate and as witness, and the need to preserve the integrity of the trial process.

The court found that the interests of justice required the removal of Mr. Gibson and his firm, and ordered Wildpine Residence Inc. to appoint alternative counsel within 60 days.

The plaintiff, Ojohome Canada Ltd. o/a Houseful, sought an interlocutory injunction or mandatory order to restore its access to live feed data from the Toronto Region MLS service provided by TRREB.

The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff did not meet the high threshold for a mandatory order and that damages would be an adequate remedy.

The decision discusses the contractual and regulatory context of MLS data access and the requirements for injunctive relief.

The applicant sought urgent relief in the form of a Norwich order and a Mareva injunction to recover funds allegedly lost to fraud.

The court declined to grant these extraordinary remedies, finding that the identity and location of the respondent were already known and that the circumstances did not justify such sweeping orders.

The decision emphasizes the proportionality and appropriateness of remedies, suggesting that a straightforward damages action in Small Claims Court is the proper course.

The court fixed costs following the dismissal of a personal injury action after the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) determined the plaintiff’s right of action was removed by statute.

The court considered the conduct of both parties, including delay in bringing the WSIAT application, and awarded the defendants $62,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, excluding costs related to the WSIAT hearing and a security for costs motion.

The applicant, Thuy Bich Ti Le, sought relief from forfeiture of deposits paid under an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property after she was unable to close due to failed financing.

The respondent, Calvan Barrhaven Conservancy Inc., opposed the application, indicating it would pursue damages in a separate action.

The court found the application premature, as the respondent had a prima facie right to forfeit the deposit and the full circumstances would be litigated in the anticipated action.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to the applicant raising the issue in a defence or counterclaim in future proceedings.