Carlin McGoogan

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's Statement of Defence without leave to amend and for default judgment.

The defendant admitted to misappropriating funds but claimed her actions were caused by mental distress resulting from the plaintiff's demands that she assist in fraudulent acts.

The court found it was not plain and obvious that the defence could not succeed, but held that the particulars improperly focused on the plaintiff's alleged illegal acts rather than the acts causing the defendant's stress.

The court struck paragraphs 6 to 14 of the Statement of Defence with leave to amend.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice dated November 8, 2016, challenging the motion judge's assessment of damages and raising allegations of negligence and dishonesty against the respondent's lawyer.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's assessment of loss.

The court rejected the appellant's claims regarding solicitor negligence, noting that such claims raised in the context of an appeal can only succeed in the rarest of cases and would require evidence of collusion, which was absent here.

The court held that solicitor negligence claims are not the appropriate subject of an appeal and should be pursued through separate litigation against the lawyer.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' negligence claim for mental distress arising from the death of a family member in a helicopter crash.

The defendants argued that common law precludes recovery for mental distress resulting from the negligently caused death of a human being unless the plaintiffs witnessed the accident or its aftermath.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, the court found that geographic, temporal, and relational proximity restrictions are not absolute bars to recovery.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding it was not plain and obvious that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

A non-party former solicitor sought leave to intervene in an appeal where the defendant appellant was challenging a summary judgment order granting forfeiture of a deposit and costs, claiming the documentary record was incomplete due to the solicitor's negligence.

The Chief Justice of Ontario granted the intervention, finding that the interests of justice favoured a complete evidentiary record.

The court declared that the appellant had waived solicitor-client privilege with respect to the solicitor's file and communications pertaining to the matters in dispute.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' 70-page Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs' action alleged misfeasance in public office and Charter breaches arising from a withdrawn child protection proceeding.

The Master found she had jurisdiction to hear the motion and concluded that the pleading was overly prolix, contained evidence, argument, and immaterial facts, and violated the rules of pleading.

The motion was granted, striking numerous paragraphs with leave to amend, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The appellant, a long-term employee who suddenly became deaf, was subjected to a campaign of abuse by her employer designed to force her resignation.

She was ultimately fired for a frivolous reason.

The employer was noted in default in her wrongful dismissal action.

On appeal from the damages assessment, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by awarding damages that were too low across several categories, including Human Rights Code violations, intentional infliction of mental distress, aggravated damages, and punitive damages.

The total damages were increased to $246,049.92, the maximum allowable under the unamended statement of claim.

The plaintiff commenced an action against his mother, sister, and others regarding a family cottage, alleging fraud and conspiracy against his sister.

The plaintiff settled with the other parties and consented to the dismissal of the action against his sister.

The sister sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found no reason to deprive the successful sister of her costs and awarded them on a substantial indemnity scale due to the unproven allegations of fraud and conspiracy.

However, finding the claimed amount of over $400,000 excessive and disproportionate to the $300,000 value of the cottage, the court referred the bill of costs to an assessment officer before fixing the final amount.

The plaintiff sought default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action after the defendant was noted in default and unsuccessful in attempts to set aside that default.

The court accepted the uncontested evidence that the employer failed to accommodate the employee’s deafness and subjected the employee to humiliating treatment culminating in termination.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded 24 months’ pay in lieu of notice and damages for loss of benefits.

The court also awarded damages for discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and punitive damages due to the employer’s egregious conduct and failure to accommodate disability.

Total damages exceeded $109,000 plus interest and costs.

The applicant sought to overturn a firearms officer's decision to revoke his licence to possess and acquire firearms.

The firearms officer revoked the licence based on concerns about the applicant's responsibility and discipline as a gun owner, citing a pattern of aggressive and irrational behaviour, multiple criminal harassment charges, a bitter feud with his cousin, threatening communications with a former girlfriend, and a suicide attempt.

The court upheld the revocation, finding the firearms officer's decision was clearly reasonable and that the applicant lacked the responsibility and discipline required of gun owners.

The court found the applicant's credibility severely compromised by his inconsistent statements and pattern of refusing to accept adverse decisions.

The appellant challenged a motion judge’s refusal to set aside a noting in default, arguing that the finding that it was merely delaying trial was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal held that the impugned finding was justified on the record and accepted the motion judge’s view that the pleading complaints amounted to clutching at trivialities.

Because that finding was central to the refusal to set aside the default, appellate intervention was unwarranted.

The appeal was dismissed with partial indemnity costs fixed at $8,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his claims against the respondent university.

The appellant conceded his original statement of claim could not stand but argued he should have been granted leave to amend it to plead breach of contract for the university's failure to graduate him in 2004.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed amendment would entirely recast the claim, which originally focused on academic marks and unfair treatment.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim for malicious prosecution against the respondents.

The trial judge had found that the appellant failed to establish the elements of malicious prosecution, specifically that the respondents, rather than the Crown, made the decision to prosecute.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of the law or apprehension of the evidence, noting that her credibility findings were entitled to deference.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiffs’ action and granting judgment on the defendant’s counterclaim in a residential boundary dispute, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendant had previously served an offer to settle dismissing the action with partial indemnity costs, which remained open and unaccepted.

The plaintiffs argued for partial indemnity costs and challenged the defendant counsel’s hourly rate, while the defendant sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court found the defendant was virtually completely successful and that the time spent and hourly rate were reasonable.

Balancing the factors under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded costs at a level slightly above partial indemnity but below substantial indemnity.

The applicant, a former employee, sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision that dismissed her application under the Pay Equity Act for failing to establish a prima facie case.

She argued the Tribunal made findings of fact without evidence and denied her procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment to retain counsel.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision reasonable, noting the applicant failed to plead material facts challenging the pay equity plan and had ample notice that her application could be dismissed early.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The appellant discovered that the respondent, a fellow bank employee who was in a relationship with the appellant's former husband, had repeatedly accessed her private banking records without authorization.

The motion judge dismissed the appellant's claim, finding that Ontario law did not recognize a tort of invasion of privacy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, formally recognizing the tort of intrusion upon seclusion in Ontario.

The court awarded the appellant $10,000 in damages, finding the respondent's deliberate and repeated actions were highly offensive and caused distress.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claims against the respondents for allegedly agreeing to engage in unlawful conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly concluded the allegations were based entirely on assumptions, speculation, and embellishment.

Leave to appeal the motion judge's costs award was denied, and the respondents were awarded costs of the appeal on a substantial indemnity scale due to the appeal being entirely meritless.