Carissima Mathen

On a motion for leave to intervene in a pending constitutional challenge to the mental-illness exclusion from medical assistance in dying, the court granted leave to four public-interest interveners to participate in an urgent July motion seeking individual constitutional relief under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

Applying Rule 13.02 and the generous constitutional intervention framework, the court found each proposed intervener had a sufficient interest, distinct perspective, or recognized expertise capable of assisting the court.

The court held it was premature to determine intervention in the underlying application because the evidentiary record was incomplete and additional intervener requests might follow.

Strict limits were imposed: no new evidence, no new issues, no submissions on the individual applicant’s personal circumstances, and no costs.

Wrongful dismissal action by a senior executive seeking common law notice damages, bonus compensation, long-term incentive compensation, tax gross-up, benefits, and bad faith-related damages.

The court rejected inducement, fixed reasonable notice at eight months, and applied the common law framework governing incentive compensation during the notice period.

It held that the employee was entitled to a 40% STIP for 2019 and a prorated STIP through the end of notice, and to the value of LTIP units vesting within notice plus prorated value of unvested LTIP, because the forfeiture language in the grant documents was not sufficiently enforceable to remove common law entitlements.

Claims for tax gross-up and bad faith, punitive, and moral damages were dismissed, and limited benefits damages were awarded.

The parties brought urgent cross-motions in an intra-family dispute involving a family company and the estate of a deceased family member.

The court noted that proceedings involving the estate were subject to a mandatory stay under Rule 9.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because the deceased died intestate and no estate trustee had been appointed.

The court adjourned the motions to a later date to consider the appointment of a Litigation Trustee for the estate, while noting the parties' agreement to mediate the underlying disputes in the interim.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for default judgment seeking possession of a property and payment of a mortgage debt.

The defendant failed to defend the action and was noted in default.

The court found that the deemed admissions established liability and that the contractual compound interest rate of 4.82% was enforceable.

The court granted default judgment for the outstanding balance plus interest, a writ of possession, and costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Following a trial regarding a franchise termination where both parties achieved very modest success, the parties made submissions on costs.

The plaintiffs sought over $222,000, while the defendants sought $150,000.

The court found that the parties achieved divided success, with the plaintiffs recovering an amount within the Small Claims Court jurisdiction and the defendants succeeding only on minor counterclaims.

The court ordered that both parties bear their own costs.

The plaintiffs requested a case conference to address typographical errors in the court's original order granting a stay of proceedings.

The original order mistakenly stayed a discontinued action instead of the 2024 action and omitted the relief allowing the plaintiffs' counterclaim to proceed as undefended.

As the defendants did not object, the court issued a corrected order to accurately reflect its original reasons for decision.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, commenced an action against her former articling firm for breach of contract, breach of duty of care, breach of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent concealment.

The parties had been engaged in litigation since 2008 across multiple forums regarding the plaintiff's termination and the disclosure of her official law school transcripts.

The defendant requested that the action be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was an attempt to relitigate issues that had been fully and finally disposed of in prior proceedings, including a 2022 summary judgment decision.

The court concluded that the action was vexatious and an abuse of process, and ordered it dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a claim for malicious prosecution against his former partner, who counterclaimed for sexual assault and battery.

The defendant had made a police complaint alleging multiple incidents of assault and sexual assault, leading to criminal charges against the plaintiff that were ultimately stayed.

The court dismissed the counterclaim, finding the defendant's allegations were false and her testimony lacked credibility.

The court granted the plaintiff's claim for malicious prosecution, concluding that the defendant initiated the criminal proceedings by making false statements to police out of anger and for financial leverage.

The plaintiff was awarded $247,065.13 in general, special, and punitive damages.

The plaintiff judgment creditor brought a motion to enforce a prior judgment which found that the defendant debtor fraudulently conveyed his interest in a jointly-owned property to his wife.

The wife subsequently sold that property and purchased a new one.

The court ordered the sale of the new property, finding that the plaintiff was entitled to 50% of its net proceeds, including any increase in value.

The court declined to grant the wife additional time to obtain financing, balanced carrying costs against occupation rent, and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The defendant College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented, filed a handwritten claim alleging her child was misdiagnosed, but failed to disclose a cause of action, state any requested relief, or establish a connection to the defendant.

The court found the claim to be frivolous, vexatious, and devoid of merit, noting curious formatting and irrelevant attachments.

The action was dismissed.

Following a summary judgment where the plaintiff was awarded significant damages for breach of a promissory note but failed on claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff sought costs of $58,499.81.

The defendant argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court noted the plaintiff beat their settlement offer but declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $40,000 payable by the defendant.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant for a defaulted commercial loan and against the individual defendants on their personal guarantees.

The defendants admitted the default but argued that their landlord caused the business failure by locking them out, and requested a stay of enforcement to pursue a third-party claim against the landlord.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial as the debt was admitted and the landlord's actions were not the bank's fault.

The court declined to stay enforcement, holding that it would be inequitable to delay the bank's recovery based on an unrelated third-party dispute.

The plaintiff brought an action against the regulatory college seeking declarations and orders regarding the college's alleged failure to investigate the integrity of a third-party examining board's written examinations.

The defendant requested the action be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the claim to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as it was a collateral attack attempting to re-litigate the plaintiff's previously unsuccessful challenges to his examination results.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage and obtain a writ of possession.

The self-represented defendant did not dispute signing the charge or defaulting, but argued she was pressured into the agreement by her daughter.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, as the defendant's allegations against her daughter did not affect the plaintiff's legal rights.

Summary judgment was granted, awarding the plaintiff the amount owing, a writ of possession stayed for 30 days, and costs on a solicitor and client basis.

The registrar referred a motion to the court pursuant to rule 2.1.01(7) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, following a written request by counsel for the defendant, a professional regulatory body.

On reviewing the plaintiff's statement of claim, the court found it appeared to be frivolous and vexatious.

The court directed the registrar to issue a Form 2.1A notice to the self-represented plaintiff, stayed the proceeding pending the outcome of the written hearing under rule 2.1, and limited further filings to the plaintiff's written submissions.

The court remained seized of the matter.

Following a trial regarding retroactive child and spousal support, both parties sought costs.

The applicant sought full recovery of $173,660 based on substantial success and offers to settle, while the respondent argued the parties should bear their own costs as she was the successful party.

The court found that success was divided, as the applicant was successful on many issues but failed on his core theory that he had overpaid the respondent.

The court also found the applicant's offers to settle did not entitle him to costs under Rule 24(12).

Ultimately, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a stay of proceedings and related relief after discovering that the defendant, a former business partner, had been secretly accessing the plaintiff's personal email account for years.

The account contained privileged communications between the plaintiff and his lawyers regarding their ongoing litigation.

The court applied the three-stage test for unauthorized access to privileged materials.

Finding that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice and that actual, profound prejudice had occurred, the court concluded the breach was egregious and irremediable.

The court stayed the defendant's actions and ordered the plaintiff's action to proceed undefended.

The plaintiff franchisee operated a pizza franchise for 17 years.

After the franchise system was sold, the new franchisor terminated the plaintiff's month-to-month franchise agreement on two days' notice following failed renewal negotiations.

The plaintiff subsequently protested outside the store, leading the franchisor to counterclaim for nuisance, defamation, trespass, and intentional interference with economic relations.

The court held that the franchisor was entitled to terminate the agreement but failed to provide reasonable notice, awarding the plaintiff $10,000.

The court dismissed the franchisor's counterclaims for nuisance, defamation, and interference, finding the protests were largely peaceful and the statements were either justified or fair comment, but awarded $100 in nominal damages for a minor trespass involving gluing posters to the store windows.

The defendants by counterclaim moved to set aside a noting in default that resulted from their former counsel's failure to comply with court orders and timetables over a period of years.

The responding party opposed the motion, arguing the moving parties bore responsibility for the delay and seeking an adjournment to examine the former lawyer.

Applying the Franchetti factors, the court found the default was principally caused by the former lawyer's neglect, the moving parties acted swiftly once personally served, and the balance of prejudice favoured the moving parties given their exposure to a multi-million-dollar counterclaim.

The motion was granted, the noting in default set aside, and costs of $35,000 awarded to the moving parties.

The defendant, a former employee of the plaintiff geoscientific company, brought a motion to strike the statement of claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiff had sued the defendant for communicating with the Professional Geoscientists Association of Ontario, which led to a regulatory investigation into the company.

The court found that the defendant's communications with the quasi-judicial regulatory body were protected by absolute privilege, and that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action to the extent it relied on those communications.

The court further found the action constituted an abuse of process, as the plaintiff sought to weaponize legally protected communications with a regulator.

The statement of claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend, and costs of $7,916.78 were awarded to the defendant.