Catherine Patterson

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay damages for sexually assaulting the respondent after administering the drug temazepam without her knowledge.

The appellant argued the trial judge ignored relevant evidence, provided insufficient reasons, and erred in applying the rule in Browne v. Dunne.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge conducted a thorough credibility assessment, provided extensive reasons capable of appellate review, and properly applied the rule in Browne v. Dunne because the appellant failed to put his version of events to the respondent during cross-examination.

The plaintiffs sought leave under Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to bring a motion for partial summary judgment in an intellectual property dispute regarding the enforcement of a confidential settlement agreement.

The defendants opposed, arguing that the enforceability of the agreement's no-challenge clause raised unsettled public policy issues requiring a full trial record.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that partial summary judgment would likely increase costs, cause further delay, and was an inappropriate mechanism to resolve the complex legal and public interest issues surrounding the no-challenge clause.

A former director and investor brought a motion for summary judgment alleging negligent misrepresentation by corporate directors, the chief financial officer, and an engineering consultant arising from a private placement investment that later became worthless after the corporation entered receivership.

The plaintiff alleged misrepresentations concerning reserve reports, a bank borrowing base notice, and the intended use of proceeds of the financing.

The court held that many alleged representations were made to the plaintiff in his capacity as a director rather than as an investor, raising significant duty of care issues and rendering reliance problematic.

The court also found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether misrepresentations occurred, whether they were negligent, and whether reliance was established.

In addition, most claims were found to be statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

In corporate litigation involving a tavern business, the plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their statement of claim and for an order compelling a further and better affidavit of documents and production prior to examinations for discovery.

The defendants brought a cross‑motion for leave to amend their defence and counterclaim.

The court held that allegations in a statement of claim generally do not constitute “admissions” within the meaning of Rule 51.05 and therefore the plaintiffs’ proposed amendments were governed by Rule 26.01.

Leave to amend was granted subject to minor clarifying revisions and payment of limited “costs thrown away,” rendering the defendants’ motion moot.

On the production motion, the court criticized both parties for failing to comply with Rule 29.1 discovery planning obligations and ordered limited additional production while refusing broader relief without prejudice pending a discovery plan and examinations.

Multiple motions were brought in related commercial proceedings seeking security for costs and leave to amend pleadings.

The defendants sought security for costs against an individual plaintiff on the basis that the action was allegedly frivolous and vexatious and that the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario.

The court held that the claim was not clearly devoid of merit and there was insufficient evidence that the plaintiff lacked assets, so security was refused.

In separate corporate actions, the moving parties also sought security for costs against a corporate plaintiff, but the court found their evidence of financial insufficiency was speculative and failed to meet the Rule 56.01 threshold.

However, leave to amend the statements of defence to challenge the validity of an assignment of claims and to plead reliance on legal advice was granted, as no prejudice would result.

Following a successful motion declaring that a commercial lease had been validly renewed, the receiver of a pharmacy business and the senior secured creditor sought recovery of their legal costs from the landlord.

The court considered objections that counsel time was excessive and that only one counsel should have participated, as well as a challenge to computerized legal research as a recoverable disbursement.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the preparation time and participation of separate counsel were reasonable given the high financial stakes of the litigation.

Computerized legal research was also found to be a proper disbursement.

Costs were fixed at reduced amounts but substantially in favour of the successful parties.