Calum MacLeod

The applicant, who was placed on the sex offender registry for 20 years in 2006, applied to have his name removed and reporting requirements terminated after receiving a pardon under the Criminal Records Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving that the impact of continued registration was grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society.

The court noted that while the applicant experienced fear and anxiety about potential stigmatization, this was common to anyone required to report, and did not outweigh the investigative purpose of the registry.

The applicant sought to enforce a right of first refusal to purchase a jointly owned property at its 2019 fair market value.

The respondent argued the right was never validly exercised and sought an immediate sale under the Partition Act.

The court reserved its decision on the merits of the right of first refusal but ordered the immediate sale of the property at current fair market value, noting that damages would be an adequate remedy if a breach of contract occurred.

The applicant condominium corporation appealed an arbitrator's preliminary ruling that he had jurisdiction to determine whether the respondents' conduct was oppressive under s. 135 of the Condominium Act.

The applicant argued that oppression claims must be brought before the Superior Court of Justice and cannot be arbitrated.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator was correct in concluding that s. 135 does not oust an arbitrator's jurisdiction to consider oppressive conduct if the dispute falls within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary order to increase his parenting time to a shared week-about schedule and reduce child support.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for increased child support and temporary spousal support.

The court declined to change the existing temporary parenting order, finding no evidence that the current arrangement was harmful to the child's best interests.

The court ordered the father to pay table child support of $1,338 per month starting August 1, 2021, and temporary spousal support of $1,000 per month starting July 1, 2021, declining to impute income to the mother at this temporary stage.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the children to the matrimonial home and primary care after the respondent mother unilaterally left with them to a shelter.

The mother raised concerns regarding the father's anger and verbal abuse.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding it imprudent to order the children's return on an inadequate factual record.

The court ordered that the father's parenting time remain supervised pending further investigation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment on liability in a solicitor's negligence action against their former lawyer and his firm.

The plaintiffs alleged the lawyer failed to prepare a promissory note to support a General Security Agreement, weakening their bargaining position with a debtor.

The court found that while the lawyer breached the standard of care by acting in a conflict of interest and failing to prepare the note, the plaintiffs suffered no compensable loss as the debt was recognized, secured, and largely repaid.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion and granted a 'boomerang' summary judgment dismissing the action entirely.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for approval of a $5,000,000 settlement in a class proceeding against a Children's Aid Society regarding a privacy breach where confidential client information was leaked online.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel's contingency fee of approximately $1.6 million plus disbursements, applying the Smith Estate factors, and approved a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff to be paid from counsel's fees.

The plaintiff's insurer brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement regarding its subrogated claim for property damage caused by the defendant's excavation.

The defendant had agreed to pay $400,000 to the insurer, but payment was deferred until a settlement with the named plaintiffs or the outcome of a liability trial.

The defendant subsequently settled with the named plaintiffs and obtained a release, effectively eliminating the liability trial.

The court held that the insurer had standing to enforce the agreement by motion in the main action and ordered the defendant to pay the $400,000 immediately, as the condition for payment had been met by the settlement with the named plaintiffs.

The plaintiff, an Ontario-based charity, brought an action for a declaration that it owed no money to the defendant, a US-based charity operating in Colombia, under a funding agreement.

The agreement contained a forum selection clause designating Ontario.

The defendant moved to stay the Ontario action, arguing that the dispute should be heard in Colombia where it had initiated proceedings to annul the forum clause.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate 'strong cause' to override the parties' contractual choice of forum, as the dispute primarily involved contractual interpretation and accounting rather than broad factual inquiries in Colombia.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify the action as a class proceeding for the purposes of settlement.

The proposed settlement involved modest payments to registered class members without a claims process, and cy pres payments to universities researching pet health.

The court found the streamlined process fair and reasonable, certified a national class, and approved the notice process and schedule for the settlement approval hearing.

The applicant sought to be appointed as Estate Trustee without a bond for the estate of her former stepfather, who died intestate.

The deceased had no spouse, children, or known next of kin.

The court found that the applicant, as the daughter of a former common-law partner, did not qualify as an heir under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The motion was dismissed and the matter was referred to the Public Guardian and Trustee for investigation.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for certification of a proposed class action, the successful defendant sought costs.

The plaintiff argued that costs should not be awarded because the litigation was in the public interest.

The court rejected this argument, finding no reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $182,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, noting that online legal research charges are not a proper disbursement.

The plaintiff commenced a divorce proceeding and a separate civil tort action against the defendant spouse, alleging assault and negligence.

The defendant moved to strike or stay the civil action as an abuse of process, arguing it improperly circumvented the family law regime.

The court declined to strike the entire civil action, finding it is not prima facie an abuse of process to commence a separate tort proceeding.

However, the court struck certain improperly pleaded claims, struck the jury notice, and ordered joint case management of both proceedings to avoid duplication and ensure judicial efficiency.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class proceeding against the City of Ottawa arising from a deadly bus accident at Westboro Station.

The proposed action was structured to plead systemic negligence in transit design and operation while avoiding claims against the city as the owner of the vehicle and employer of the driver.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as it ignored readily available compensation under the motor vehicle insurance regime and numerous individual actions had already been commenced.

The Proposal Trustee brought a motion for court approval of the amended joint proposal of Artiva Inc. and Livewell Foods Canada Inc. under s. 58 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and a related plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The proposal was supported by the majority of creditors, but opposed by a dissenting creditor who sought an adjournment due to late delivery of proofs of claim.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the time to challenge claims for voting purposes had expired.

The court approved the proposal and arrangement, finding them viable, made in good faith, and likely to generate a superior recovery for creditors than bankruptcy.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the defendant brought an eve-of-trial motion to adjourn the trial and compel further disclosure and discovery regarding the plaintiff's mitigation efforts through his corporation.

The plaintiff had previously answered 'zero' when asked about personal income from the corporation, but recently produced a ledger showing significant shareholder loan repayments.

The court granted leave for the motion, finding the plaintiff had an ongoing obligation to correct misleading discovery answers.

The court ordered limited additional documentary production and a brief discovery, but declined to adjourn the trial, directing that the discovery be completed before the trial commenced the following week.

The noteholders appealed the Proposal Trustee's disallowance of their unsecured claims in the BIA proposals of several subsidiary corporations.

The Trustee had determined that the subsidiaries' guarantees were limited to an initial US$3 million advance and did not cover a subsequent US$12 million advance, and that the initial advance had been fully satisfied by a property transfer.

The Superior Court upheld the Trustee's interpretation of the guarantees but found an error in the debt allocation, ruling that US$828,000 of the guaranteed debt remained outstanding and should be recognized as an unsecured claim.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce undertakings and refusals from cross-examinations and for leave to file a supplementary affidavit in the context of an oppression application.

The court held that questions regarding the existence of directors' and officers' insurance policies need not be answered, as the rules compelling disclosure of insurance in actions do not apply to applications where discovery is not available.

However, questions regarding the corporation's financial statements were ordered to be answered.

The court also granted the applicant leave to file a supplementary affidavit based on newly disclosed financial information.

Following a summary judgment awarding modest damages for defamation, the plaintiffs sought costs of $35,870.58.

The defendants argued no costs should be awarded under Rule 57.05 because the recovery was within the Small Claims Court limit.

The court held that defamation actions involve more than monetary damages and declined to deprive the plaintiffs of costs, particularly given their prior offers to settle.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the plaintiffs $10,000 in costs.

The plaintiff retained new counsel shortly before trial and brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim, conduct further discovery, and file an expert report, despite the action having been set down for trial.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed amendments did not add new causes of action and that the defendants would not suffer irremediable prejudice.

The court also permitted further discovery, noting that the recent production of audited financial statements justified the plaintiff's change in strategy.