Charles T. Hackland

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 49.09(a) to enforce a settlement of the plaintiff's motor vehicle personal injury action.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing she did not clearly authorize her former counsel to settle and abandon her case.

The court found that a settlement was reached and that there were no special circumstances, such as marked inadequacy or collusion, to justify exercising its narrow discretion to refuse enforcement.

The motion was granted, the settlement was enforced, and the action was dismissed without costs.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a summary trial to determine the amounts owing under two liens registered against the defendants' unit for unpaid common expenses, charge-backs, and legal costs.

The defendants, who had a long history of conflict with the condominium board, disputed the charges and the validity of the liens.

The court found the liens were validly registered and upheld the common expense arrears and charge-backs.

However, the court disallowed the plaintiff's claim for compliance legal costs because the plaintiff had failed to attempt mediation as required by the Condominium Act.

The court fixed the total amount secured by the liens at $117,287, which included a 25% reduction in the legal fees claimed for the lien enforcement proceeding.

The defendants appealed a decision certifying an Ontario national class action and dismissing a motion to stay the action as an abuse of process due to a parallel, certified Quebec class action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of discretion.

The motion judge properly considered the history of the proceedings, including the defendants' failure to oppose the Quebec authorization after last-minute amendments, and reasonably concluded the Ontario action was not an abuse of process and was the preferable procedure.

The applicant student was unsuccessful in obtaining an interlocutory injunction to stay disciplinary decisions made by the respondent college.

The respondent college sought partial indemnity costs of $7,210.

The court found the college was entirely successful and entitled to costs, but reduced the quantum to $5,000 due to the applicant's hardship as an international student navigating the public health crisis without family support.

The defendants, Ottawa Police Service and Cst.

Keith Patrick, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim for negligent investigation of a sexual assault complaint.

The plaintiff argued that the claim was not statute-barred due to section 16 of the Limitations Act, 2002, which removes limitation periods for proceedings based on sexual assault.

The court held that the police do not owe a private law duty of care to victims of crime regarding the conduct of an investigation.

Consequently, the plaintiff could not rely on section 16, and the claim was both statute-barred and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The motion to strike was granted without leave to amend.

The accused was convicted of intentionally discharging a firearm and several other weapons offences after firing 13 shots at a fleeing vehicle in downtown Ottawa.

At the time, he was bound by a recognizance prohibiting him from possessing firearms.

The Crown sought a 9-year sentence, while the defence sought 4 years plus credit for stringent bail conditions.

The court imposed a total sentence of 8 years imprisonment, finding the offence fell at the lower end of the range for serious firearms offences since no one was injured by the accused's shots.

The court also granted 12 months of enhanced credit for the restrictive house arrest and curfew conditions the accused endured while on bail.

The plaintiff franchisor sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce restrictive covenants against the defendant franchisee, who had purported to terminate the franchise agreement and opened a competing fitness studio.

The dispute arose after the franchisor implemented a direct-to-consumer online fitness program during the COVID-19 pandemic, which the franchisee alleged constituted a fundamental breach.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding fundamental breach, the franchisor failed to establish a strong prima facie case, and the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction given the imminent expiration of the agreement and the potential loss of livelihood for the franchisee's employees.

The applicant student sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent college from evicting him from the student residence after his contract expired, following disciplinary sanctions for failing to wear a mask.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the college's decision to enter into or renew a residence agreement was a private, contractual matter not subject to judicial review, as it did not involve the exercise of a power central to the college's administrative mandate.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as relocation costs would be compensable in damages and his academic program was being delivered remotely.

The plaintiff moved to vary an existing interlocutory injunction to explicitly prohibit the defendants from selling a new software product, FireWire.

The plaintiff alleged that FireWire, like its predecessor FireCat, contained source code and database schema copied from the plaintiff's SilverEye software.

The court found a substantial issue to be tried regarding the alleged copying and varied the injunction to include FireWire in the Canadian market.

The court declined to expand the injunction to the United States market, finding no irreparable harm.

The appellant architect appealed a decision of the Registration Committee of the Ontario Association of Architects, which reinstated his licence with conditions but refused to reinstate his certificate of practice.

The Registrar's Notice of Proposal to refuse reinstatement was based solely on concerns related to a partial building collapse at the appellant's property.

However, the Committee based its refusal primarily on the appellant's history of fee defaults and poor interactions with the Association, which were not included in the Notice.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Committee committed an error of law by denying the appellant procedural fairness and natural justice due to the lack of notice.

The appellant lawyer appealed decisions of the Law Society Appeal Division that affirmed findings of professional misconduct, including knowing participation in real estate fraud, and the penalty of license revocation.

The appellant also appealed the dismissal of a motion seeking the recusal of two Appeal Division panelists based on their involvement in a prior costs appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on all grounds, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings, no error in principle regarding penalty or costs, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

Covertite Eastern Ltd., a third party, sought summary judgment to dismiss a third-party claim by GRC Architects Inc. in a construction dispute concerning persistent water infiltration in a building's roofing structure.

Covertite argued the issues were design-related, not workmanship, for which it had no responsibility.

GRC Architects Inc. contended there was evidence of Covertite's negligence and poor workmanship.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the complex technical issues and overlapping factual disputes with the main action and another third-party claim created a significant risk of inconsistent findings, making summary judgment inappropriate and not conducive to judicial economy.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion to admit the videotaped police statement of a witness who died shortly after the incident.

The witness did not see the stabbing but spoke to both the deceased and the accused on the day of the incident.

The court found the statement lacked threshold reliability due to the witness's severe liver disease, cognitive decline, and apparent bias.

The motion was largely dismissed, with the statement ruled inadmissible hearsay, save for a brief observation regarding the deceased's demeanor prior to the incident.

The accused brought an application for certiorari to quash her committal for trial and for a stay of proceedings.

During a judicial pre-trial where she was unrepresented, the Crown added a serious charge without explanation, and the accused was incorrectly advised she had no right to a preliminary inquiry and was not put to her election under section 536 of the Criminal Code.

The court found this to be a jurisdictional error that could not be retroactively corrected by the Crown withdrawing the added charge.

The committal was quashed and the matter remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice for a proper election.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed as premature.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $2,500.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an October 26, 2020 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs fixed in the amount of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a prior decision of the Superior Court of Justice dated September 30, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs fixed at $4,000 to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Fowler Byrne J. dated February 6, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $6,000.

The accused pled guilty to possession of proceeds of crime and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and crack cocaine.

The Crown and defence jointly proposed a sentence of two years less a day, but disagreed on whether it should be served in custody or as a conditional sentence.

The court found that while the aggravating factors of commercial trafficking would normally require incarceration, the collateral consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the accused's asthma tipped the scales in favour of a conditional sentence.

The accused, Steven Redden-Cox, was sentenced for one count of sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved forced intercourse and fellatio on a vulnerable, mildly intoxicated 18-year-old complainant, following initial consensual intimate touching.

The court characterized the offence as "predatory" and falling within the "date rape" category, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

Despite the accused's expression of regret and potential for rehabilitation, the court imposed a sentence of two years in penitentiary, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a no-contact order with the complainant.