Calum U. C. MacLeod

The plaintiff, a resident of Australia involved in family law and other actions against judges, brought a motion seeking recusal of Justice Corthorn and any judge acting under the direction of the defendants or represented by the Attorney General of Ontario.

Alternatively, he sought a stay of his own action or a separate action to determine the lawfulness of the Attorney General representing judges.

The motion was dismissed without a hearing as moot, given Justice Corthorn had already dismissed the underlying action against the Chief Justice and Associate Chief Justice under Rule 2.1.

The recusal motion itself was also found to be frivolous and vexatious, as prior rulings against a litigant do not constitute bias, and the premise that judges acting under the Chief Justice's direction are biased is impossible.

This endorsement addresses costs submissions following a decision on competing pleading motions in a class action.

The plaintiffs were substantially successful in their motion to amend pleadings, while the defendants' parallel motion to strike was largely unsuccessful.

Despite the plaintiffs' success, the court declined to award costs to either party, citing the public importance of the litigation, which involves exploring the boundaries of constitutionally protected protest rights versus the rights of individual citizens to seek compensation for disruption.

The applicant commercial tenant sought a declaration that it had been overcharged for base rent and requested a retroactive rent rebate of at least $450,000.

The tenant argued that the rent charged exceeded market rates and relied on certain lease provisions referencing rentable area and market rents.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the parties had freely negotiated and agreed to the rent increases as the tenant expanded its footprint.

The court held that the lease did not contain a general right to a retroactive rent adjustment based on market rates.

The plaintiffs sought an urgent motion for an interim injunction against a former owner for alleged breach of a non-solicitation agreement.

The court, having found urgency, held a case conference to establish a timetable for the motion, emphasizing the need for a full record and encouraging settlement.

A schedule for serving motion records, responding affidavits, cross-examinations, and filing materials was set, with the motion for interim injunction returnable on June 15, 2023.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to partially stay an action initiated by two former civilian RCMP members, Francisco Chaves and Dayna Young.

The plaintiffs alleged abuse of authority, bullying, and harassment during their employment, particularly under Cameron Ortis, and unfair treatment after his arrest.

The Crown sought a stay, arguing that Mr. Chaves might be covered by a Quebec class proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no significant judicial economy, uncertainty regarding Mr. Chaves's inclusion in the Quebec class, and no real prejudice to the Crown if the action continued.

The court also noted that some aspects of the Ontario case might not be covered by the Quebec class action.

The applicant solicitor sought directions regarding the continuation of a solicitor-client assessment of accounts, which had been postponed by an Assessment Officer due to an automatic stay under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act against some respondents.

The court clarified the effect of an appeal on the bankruptcy stay and, exercising its discretion, lifted the stay to permit the assessment to proceed.

The court also provided directions to the Assessment Officer regarding the exclusion of observers and the disregard of unsworn ex parte communications.

The plaintiffs, Griffon Integrated Security Technologies Inc. and Randall Sheppard, brought a motion for judgment in a wrongful dismissal action after the defendants' pleadings were struck and they were noted in default.

The court found the contract between the parties was an employment contract and awarded the plaintiffs damages for breach of contract (20 months' pay in lieu of notice), pre-judgment interest, substantial indemnity costs, and punitive damages.

The court also lifted a stay under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for the purpose of granting judgment and found the individual defendant, R. Michael Martin, jointly and severally liable by piercing the corporate veil due to his direct involvement in the wrongful acts and the undefended nature of the action.

The appellant mother appealed an interim order granting the respondent father decision-making authority to have their seven-year-old child vaccinated against COVID-19.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, applying the Court of Appeal's guidance in J.N. v. C.G. The court held that government recommendations regarding vaccination are admissible under the public document exception to the hearsay rule, and judicial notice may be taken of regulatory approval.

The motion judge correctly placed the onus on the mother to establish why the child should not be vaccinated, and did not err in allocating decision-making on an interim basis or in weighing the mother's views as the primary caregiver.

The appellant father appealed an interim motion order that granted the respondent mother sole decision-making authority to vaccinate their eldest child against COVID-19 and significantly restricted the father's parenting time due to his unvaccinated status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the vaccination, finding no error in the motion judge's reliance on government recommendations and the child's best interests.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding parenting time, holding that the motion judge erred by treating the father's unvaccinated status as a primary factor and unjustifiably sacrificing the children's meaningful relationship with their father.

The parenting schedule was remitted to the lower court.

This motion addressed the form of the Statement of Claim in a proposed class proceeding related to the "Freedom Convoy" protest in Ottawa.

The plaintiffs sought to amend their claim, while a group of defendants moved to strike it.

The court found that the proposed Statement of Claim disclosed plausible causes of action for private and public nuisance, and joint liability, including for punitive damages.

The court largely allowed the plaintiffs' motion to amend, granting leave to issue a further fresh as amended statement of claim and to add new defendants, but ordered the removal of certain paragraphs deemed extraneous, inflammatory, or evidentiary.

The defendants' motion to strike was largely dismissed.

The defendant Million Dollar Round Table (MDRT) brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim against it for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, or alternatively, for dismissal due to delay.

The plaintiff alleged negligence against MDRT, a voluntary trade association, based on a fraudulent letter from a former member bearing the MDRT emblem.

The court found that the claim failed to plead sufficient material facts to establish a novel duty of care owed by MDRT to the plaintiff, particularly for pure economic loss.

Despite the defendant's delay in bringing the motion and having filed a statement of defence, the court granted the motion to strike without leave to amend, citing the futility of the claim, the plaintiff's inaction in advancing the case, and the principle of proportionality in simplified procedure actions.

The moving parties, Societe Air France and Air France-KLM Group, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pollak J. dated July 8, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector sought judicial review of a decision by the Animal Care Review Board that reduced a $58,672.98 statement of account for the care of 80 cats to $1,800 based solely on the owner's inability to pay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board had broad discretion under section 38(9) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act to vary a statement of account and that considering an owner's ability to pay was not unreasonable or contrary to the statutory scheme.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 7, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $3,000.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Regional Senior Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed in the amount of $2,500 and awarded to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 14, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $4,000.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal denying him Income Replacement Benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable question of law.

The court held that the adjudicator's findings of fact were supported by the evidence, the correct 'but for' test for causation was applied, and there was no lack of procedural fairness during the hearing.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent insurer.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of claim as frivolous and vexatious.

The respondent requested the appeal be summarily dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court found it lacked jurisdiction under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act because the total amount claimed in the dismissed action exceeded $50,000.

Furthermore, the court found the appeal was clearly frivolous and vexatious given the appellant's history of litigation and the findings of the lower court.

The appeal was permanently stayed with no costs awarded.

The applicant father brought a motion to change child support, seeking a retroactive adjustment to 2017 based on the offset method in the parties' separation agreement.

Both parties sought to impute income to the other, alleging underemployment and questioning rental income deductions.

The court declined to impute income to either party, finding their employment choices and periods of unemployment legitimate.

The court ordered a retroactive adjustment of child support based on the parties' actual declared incomes for each year, resulting in arrears owed by the respondent mother.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff in a mortgage action.

The court considered the factors for setting aside default judgment under Rule 19.08(2), including the explanation for delay, promptness of the motion, and the merits of the defence.

While the corporate defendant was found liable for the principal mortgage amount, the court partially set aside the judgment against the corporation regarding interest rates and other charges, and fully set aside the judgment against the individual defendants concerning personal guarantees, imposing terms for compliance.