Carole J. Brown

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss a statement of claim arising from a long-running workplace dispute involving a former unionized public employee and a settlement of employment grievances.

The plaintiff alleged fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation regarding pension buy-back rights and additional promises allegedly made during settlement negotiations.

The court found the claim was brought well outside the applicable limitation period under the Limitations Act and that the discoverability rule did not apply because the plaintiff had knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing many years earlier.

The pleadings also failed to disclose the necessary elements of negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation and amounted to an attempt to relitigate issues already decided by administrative tribunals and multiple courts.

The court further held that the essential character of the dispute arose from a collective agreement and therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labour arbitration regime rather than the court.

A human rights organization sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in three related civil actions alleging human rights abuses in Guatemala by subsidiaries of Canadian mining companies.

The proposed intervention related to pending motions by the defendants to dismiss the claims for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The proposed intervenor argued it could assist the court by providing expertise on international human rights law, transnational corporate responsibility, and the potential scope of a duty of care owed by Canadian parent corporations for overseas conduct of subsidiaries.

The court held that the organization could provide a useful legal perspective on international standards and policy considerations without interfering with the evidentiary record.

Leave to intervene was granted with limits on written and oral submissions.

The moving parties sought a stay of an arbitration proceeding pending appeals from arbitration panel decisions concerning jurisdiction and party participation.

The dispute arose from an agreement granting the respondent First Nations partnership a right to have a nominee appointed to the board of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation.

The moving parties argued the arbitration panel lacked jurisdiction due to the Crown prerogative over appointments and that the exclusion of the corporation from the arbitration violated natural justice.

Applying the tripartite test for a stay from RJR‑MacDonald, the court found serious issues on appeal regarding jurisdiction, irreparable harm to the public interest if arbitration proceeded prematurely, and that the balance of convenience favoured the moving parties.

The court therefore stayed the arbitration pending determination of the appeals.

The plaintiffs appealed a case management master's order requiring them to post security for costs under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The earlier appeal had remitted the matter for reconsideration of the merits using the correct standard of whether the plaintiffs had a “good chance of success.” On rehearing, the master concluded the plaintiffs failed to establish a good chance of success and again ordered security for costs.

The Superior Court held the master correctly applied the proper legal test, carefully scrutinized the evidence and prior decisions, and exercised discretion appropriately.

No error of law, misapprehension of evidence, or improper exercise of discretion was established.

The applicant, a common‑law spouse of the deceased, brought a motion within a dependant’s support application under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act seeking interim legal fees and expert disbursements payable from the estate.

The estate trustees opposed the request, arguing that the applicant had sufficient income following an interim support order and that a non‑dissipation clause limited the estate’s ability to fund litigation.

The court reviewed the equitable jurisdiction to award interim costs and the criteria from Okanagan Indian Band requiring financial need, a prima facie meritorious claim, and special circumstances.

The court found the applicant financially constrained, facing significant legal expenses, and advancing a meritorious claim for dependant’s relief following a lengthy common‑law relationship.

Interim costs of $50,000 on a partial indemnity basis and up to $10,000 for expert valuation disbursements were ordered payable from the estate, subject to accounting and possible adjustment by the trial judge.

An employee with 19 years of service brought a wrongful dismissal action after being terminated for cause for submitting falsified medical benefits claims and misrepresenting a fictitious dependent to the employer’s benefits insurer.

The employee argued the falsifications were intended only to draw attention to an administrative error in her benefits profile and also alleged discrimination and harassment related to a workplace injury.

The court found the employee knowingly falsified documents, misled the insurer, and failed to provide truthful explanations during the employer’s investigation.

Applying the contextual approach to dishonesty in employment, the court held the misconduct fundamentally breached the trust essential to the employment relationship, particularly given the employee’s supervisory role.

Claims for wrongful dismissal, bad faith damages, and breach of the Human Rights Code were dismissed.

The moving parties sought exemption from attending examinations for discovery on medical grounds.

The court considered the prima facie right of a party to examine adverse parties under Rule 31.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the requirement that any exemption be supported by compelling medical evidence.

The medical notes provided were vague and lacked detail regarding the alleged inability to participate in discovery or the specific risks posed by the process.

The court held that the moving parties failed to discharge their burden to justify exemption from discovery.

The motion was dismissed, though the court permitted reasonable accommodations during discovery to mitigate potential health concerns.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of a Québec civil judgment arising from a loan of $30,000 that remained unpaid.

The respondent argued that she had not been properly served in the Québec proceedings.

The court reviewed the common law principles governing recognition of interprovincial judgments, noting that the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act does not apply to Québec judgments.

Applying the test for enforcement of foreign judgments, the court found that the Québec court had jurisdiction, the judgment was obtained according to the rules of that court, and the principles of natural justice were respected.

The Ontario court granted judgment enforcing the Québec judgment in the amount awarded.

The plaintiff trustee appealed an order of a Master granting a defendant leave to amend his statement of defence and assert a crossclaim against a co‑defendant following amendments to the statement of claim.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal out of time due to counsel’s inadvertence in missing the filing deadline.

The court granted the extension of time but dismissed the appeal on the merits.

Applying Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that amendments to pleadings should be permitted unless non‑compensable prejudice arises, and that alleged prejudice based on the potential success of a defence does not qualify.

The court further held that any limitation issue concerning the crossclaim was a matter for the co‑defendant and not the plaintiff.

The defendant insurer appealed an order permitting the plaintiff to amend her statement of claim to add a claim for uninsured automobile coverage after the limitation period had expired.

The original pleading alleged damages caused by an underinsured motorist and did not plead material facts establishing an uninsured motorist claim under the Insurance Act.

The court held that the proposed amendment introduced a new cause of action outside the limitation period and that the original statement of claim did not contain sufficient material facts to support an uninsured coverage claim.

The court further found that allowing the amendment would cause uncompensable prejudice to the insurer, including the inability to pursue third-party claims against the alleged tortfeasors.

The Master’s order permitting the amendment was therefore set aside.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for an interlocutory injunction against the vendor of its IT business and several former employees who joined a newly established direct competitor.

The vendor had signed a non-competition and non-solicitation agreement upon the sale of the business.

The court found that the strong prima facie case standard applied to the restrictive covenant in the context of a sale of a business.

The court held that the non-competition clause was reasonable, except for a 10 km geographic extension which was severed using the blue-pencil doctrine.

The court granted the injunction against the vendor and the other defendants, finding they were impressed with fiduciary duties, and ordered the preservation and forensic review of electronic devices due to a strong prima facie case of misappropriation of confidential information.

The defendants sought leave under Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to bring a summary judgment motion after the action had been set down for trial, seeking dismissal of claims alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of trust by a former solicitor.

The plaintiff alleged that the solicitor negligently advised against a lucrative media interview, mishandled negotiations for a lucrative rematch race, failed to ensure race earnings were deposited into an athletic reserve fund, and improperly received legal fees from that fund.

The court granted leave and held that the claims disclosed no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The evidence showed the allegations were unsupported, many were contradicted by documentary records, and the plaintiff failed to provide direct affidavit evidence from witnesses with personal knowledge.

The court further found the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and barred by laches due to significant delay and prejudice to the defendants, including the death of key witnesses.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of a default judgment issued by a United States District Court relating to copyright infringement and contractual breaches arising from the development and sale of software designed to modify an online video game.

The foreign judgment granted damages and a permanent injunction against the respondent for creating and distributing software that altered gameplay and interfered with contractual relationships governed by an end user licence agreement.

The court applied the Supreme Court of Canada’s framework for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, including the real and substantial connection test and the availability of defences such as fraud, breach of natural justice, or public policy.

The court held that the respondent had consented to the foreign jurisdiction through contractual terms and had failed to establish any applicable defences.

The foreign judgment, including the injunctive relief and damages award, was therefore recognized and enforced in Ontario.

The defendant vendor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the purchaser’s claim, discharge of a certificate of pending litigation, and permission to sell a commercial property to another buyer.

The dispute arose from an agreement of purchase and sale containing a due diligence condition allowing the purchaser to waive the condition after reviewing documentation and conducting inspections.

The vendor argued the conditional period had expired and that the purchaser was unable to obtain financing, rendering the agreement null and void.

The purchaser alleged the vendor failed to provide required documentation and obstructed due diligence, preventing completion of financing and waiver of conditions.

The court held that material facts were contested and that a full appreciation of the evidence required viva voce testimony and the full trial process.

The defendants moved to dismiss or permanently stay an Ontario action on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction and that Germany was the appropriate forum.

The dispute arose from agreements relating to the manufacture of automotive components and included forum selection clauses designating Germany as the place of jurisdiction and German law as governing law.

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish jurisdiction simpliciter because no real and substantial connection to Ontario was demonstrated.

The court further found that the plaintiffs failed to show strong cause to depart from the contractual forum selection clauses.

Applying forum non conveniens principles, the court concluded that Germany was the more appropriate forum.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike numerous allegations in the defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim on the basis that they were frivolous, vexatious, irrelevant, or unnecessary.

The court reviewed the impugned paragraphs, which related to shareholder loans, salaries, pre-contractual negotiations, instructions given by a principal, and comments by corporate counsel.

The court struck most of the challenged paragraphs as irrelevant or unnecessary.

The court also struck the defendant's oppression claim for failing to plead the necessary elements, but granted leave to amend.

The co-defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The plaintiff alleged negligence by the drivers of two vehicles ahead of him, asserting that their actions in slowing and stopping after police intervention caused the collision.

The court reviewed police reports, discovery transcripts, and documentary evidence and held that the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of negligence that applies to a driver who rear-ends another vehicle.

The evidence established that the plaintiff was following too closely and failed to maintain proper vigilance and control.

The court concluded that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims and cross-claims.

The applicant sought an order under s. 6 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 referring a contractual dispute to arbitration under a specific multi‑party arbitration procedure contained in a power supply contract.

The respondent agreed the dispute should proceed to arbitration but argued that a different contractual arbitration clause governed, requiring a single arbitrator to determine issues of contractual interpretation before any broader arbitration process could be triggered.

The court interpreted the contract as containing both a universal arbitration clause for general disputes and a limited clause applicable only if certain economic conditions were established.

The court held the dispute concerned interpretation of the agreement and therefore fell within the general arbitration clause.

The motion was dismissed and the matter directed to proceed before a sole arbitrator.

Appeal from a Master's discovery order requiring an affiant to answer undertakings and produce documents relating to a non-party pharmaceutical company.

The underlying action alleged breach of fiduciary duty by a trustee in connection with the sale of pharmaceutical businesses and the loss of royalty and option rights belonging to estate beneficiaries.

The court held that documentation relating to certain drugs manufactured by the non-party company was relevant to whether the business carried on by that company derived from the earlier enterprise, but limited production to the royalty period to ensure proportionality.

The court also upheld the order requiring production of the non-party company’s financial statements as relevant to the plaintiffs’ claimed damages and alleged lost opportunities.

The Master's order was varied in part and otherwise upheld.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages alleging the defendants made false representations regarding the financial status of two courier companies he invested in and later purchased.

The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid amounts under a share purchase agreement and for the value of retained shares.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding he was an experienced businessman who had the opportunity to conduct due diligence and failed to prove any misrepresentations.

The court granted the defendants' counterclaims in part, ordering the plaintiff to pay $50,000 to Saini for the outstanding balance of the share purchase agreement, and $50,000 to Stanford for his unabandoned share interest in the companies.