Charles William Hourigan

This costs endorsement followed the Court of Appeal's reasons dated November 1, 2024, where parties were invited to make submissions regarding costs if they could not agree.

After reviewing the submissions, the Court ordered the respondent, Matthew Preston, to pay the appellant, Cervus Equipment Corporation, all-inclusive costs of $30,000 for the motion.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claims related to a mistaken Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) transfer in 2018 and a medical driver's license suspension in 2016, along with a substantial indemnity costs order of $100,000.

The trial judge had dismissed the claims as statute-barred and found the appellant lacked credibility regarding her parking tickets.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding there was no palpable and overriding error in the determination that the claims were statute-barred, as the appellant was aware of the facts giving rise to the claims well outside the limitation periods.

The Court also affirmed the costs award, noting the appellant's unreasonable conduct, failure to accept a Rule 49 offer, and history as an experienced litigant.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a release and minutes of settlement executed by an employee after termination.

The core issue was whether the settlement documents released the employee's claim for damages related to vested stock units.

The motion judge found the vested stock units were not released, concluding the settlement made little economic sense otherwise.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in law by allowing the factual matrix to overwhelm the clear and broad language of the settlement documents, misapplying the guidance on narrow construction of releases, and improperly evaluating the economic benefits of the settlement.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment for the employee and granting judgment in favour of the employer, finding the vested stock units claim was released.

This appeal addressed the correct analytical approach to interpreting a consent judgment, an issue of first impression for the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The case involved estate litigation concerning the sale of a farm, where the parties had signed Minutes of Settlement and a Consent Judgment.

The application judge had interpreted the Consent Judgment using a dictionary definition, concluding the farm sale provision was not included and that the appellants had repudiated the Minutes of Settlement.

The Court of Appeal held that consent judgments should be interpreted using contractual principles, considering surrounding circumstances, but found the application judge's error immaterial as the Consent Judgment selectively incorporated terms from the Minutes of Settlement, excluding the farm sale.

The Court also upheld the finding that the respondents had accepted the appellants' repudiation of the Minutes of Settlement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought to overturn convictions for possession of a stolen vehicle, drugs for trafficking, careless use of a firearm, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and challenged the total 10-year sentence.

The conviction appeal argued misapprehension of evidence regarding the firearm's location.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, noting the judge's reasoned assessment of witness credibility despite inconsistencies.

The sentence appeal contended errors in applying the totality principle and the correct sentencing range for recidivist firearms offenders.

The Court affirmed that sentencing ranges are flexible and that the imposed sentence was proportionate, emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation given the gravity of the offences involving guns and drugs, and the offender's extensive criminal record, while acknowledging mitigating factors.

Both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim for a resulting trust and the granting of the respondents’ claim for partition and sale of a property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the resulting trust claim was statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act, lacked material corroboration under the Evidence Act, and would have been rebutted by evidence of a gift.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the appellant's claim for compensation for work done on the property and the order for partition and sale.

A motion to adduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The appellant, a school board trustee, appealed the dismissal of his judicial review application challenging sanctions imposed by the Toronto Catholic District School Board for breaching its code of conduct.

The trustee had made inflammatory remarks equating LGBTQ+ individuals with criminals during a public meeting.

The appeal court upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding that the Board had the authority to reconsider its initial decision (which had not found a breach), that re-litigation doctrines did not apply to the administrative process, and that the Board's decisions reasonably balanced the trustee's Charter rights with its statutory mandate to promote an inclusive school climate.

The appellant, a lawyer and former senior advisor to the Kenyan Prime Minister, appealed the dismissal of his defamation and breach of privacy action against Refinitiv Limited and Sitel Operating Corporation.

The action stemmed from his inclusion as a politically exposed person (PEP) in Refinitiv's World-Check Database, which allegedly led to a money transfer being held, and subsequent alleged defamatory statements by a Sitel customer service agent.

The motion judge had dismissed the action, finding the appellant was properly classified as a PEP, the database statements were true and publicly sourced, and any claims against Sitel were covered by a prior release or lacked evidence of defamation.

The motion judge also awarded substantial indemnity costs due to the appellant's unreasonable litigation conduct.

The Court of Appeal found no factual or legal errors in the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the claim was meritless and upholding the costs award.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario reviewed the parties' costs submissions following an appeal.

The court determined that it was not an appropriate case for costs and, accordingly, made no order for costs of the appeal.

This is an appeal concerning a fraudulent conveyance claim.

The appellant sought to enforce a default judgment against properties held in the name of the respondent's deceased wife, alleging a beneficial interest and fraudulent conveyance.

The trial judge found no fraudulent conveyance of real property but concluded that the respondent had a beneficial interest in cash transferred to his wife, which was used for mortgage payments, attributing half of the unexplained funds ($217,000) to fraudulent conveyances based on an adverse inference.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge erred in attributing only 50% of the unexplained deposits to the respondent, as the adverse inference should have applied to the entire unexplained amount given the wife's failure to disclose sources.

The Court increased the amount of fraudulently conveyed cash to $434,000.

The appellant, a de-designated firearms instructor, appealed a costs order from a motion that struck and stayed parts of his second action (2022 Action) as duplicative of an earlier action (2018 Action).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the cumulative costs award fell below the $50,000 threshold specified in the Courts of Justice Act, which applies when the costs order itself is the subject of the appeal.

This is an appeal from a trial judgment that found an insurer liable for underpaid contents claim following a fire.

The insurer (appellant) argued that the insured's failure to submit a sworn proof of loss was fatal, that an appraisal process under the Insurance Act was mandatory, and that the trial judge erred in assessing the actual cash value (ACV) of the lost property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings that the insurer had waived the sworn proof of loss requirement and that relief from forfeiture was appropriate.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's discretion to decline an appraisal under s. 128 of the Insurance Act, noting that the court was in a position to assess the ACV and that an appraisal would cause further delay and expense.

The assessment of ACV by the trial judge was also found to be free of palpable and overriding error.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and voyeurism and appealed his convictions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence.

The court upheld the trial judge's rejection of the appellant's testimony, finding it illogical and inconsistent, consistent with the principles in R. v. W.(D.).

The court also rejected the appellant's submissions regarding an alleged mistaken inference about the complainant's age and its relation to consciousness of guilt, and a ground concerning the materiality of a photograph's date.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant sought a review of a motion judge's order dismissing her request for an extension of time to perfect her motion for leave to appeal from a Superior Court decision in a family law matter.

The Court of Appeal panel applied the well-established principles for extensions of time, including the "justice of the case" test, and the deferential standard of review for discretionary decisions.

The panel found no errors in the motion judge's analysis, which concluded that an extension was not warranted due to the lack of merit in the leave application and the need for stability and finality for the child.

The application for review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her lawsuit against the Ontario Provincial Police, alleging breaches of common law and statutory duties, mental anguish, privacy violations, defamation, and Charter rights violations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's reasoning regarding the claims, the decision to proceed without further discovery or summary trial, or the conduct of the hearing, including the order for an in-person attendance and the denial of an adjournment.

The court also upheld the costs award against the self-represented appellant.

The appellants appealed an order for summary judgment in a mortgage action.

The respondents on appeal moved for an order dismissing the appeal based on the appellants' failure to satisfy a prior court order to pay outstanding costs totaling $46,280.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants had not complied with the previous order and that their arguments against dismissal, including claims of unfairness and inability to pay, lacked merit.

The respondents, investors in Hetti Group Inc., obtained summary judgment against Hetti Group and its controlling minds for misappropriated loan funds, with the corporate veil pierced and the claim found not statute-barred.

The appellants appealed on three grounds: the motion judge erred in finding the Sugi Defendants were agents for the Hetti Group for the purpose of a key email, the acknowledgment of debt was insufficient for limitation purposes as no amount was specified, and the motion judge erred in piercing the corporate veil.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings on agency, the interpretation of the Limitations Act regarding debt acknowledgment (that a specific amount is not required), and the appropriateness of piercing the corporate veil due to substantial evidence of fund misappropriation.

The appellant, Richard Alexis, appealed his global sentence of 8.5 years for multiple charges including firearm possession, dangerous operation, and flight from police.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by discounting Gladue principles, failing to adequately credit for harsh COVID-19 custody conditions, and violating the parity principle.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's approach to Gladue principles due to lack of evidence of impact, properly considering custody conditions as a mitigating factor without specific deductions, and determining that the parity principle was not engaged as the comparator cases were not sufficiently similar.

The appellants, Fredrick and Patricia Kentner, appealed the summary dismissal of their first appeal to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court, which concerned convictions and a sentence for environmental offences related to unlawful fill operations.

The appeal was based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by their paralegal and errors in the original conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no ineffective assistance as the appellants' failure to pay fines (a mandatory condition for appeal) was a deliberate choice unrelated to the paralegal's conduct, and a waiver application would have had no prospect of success.

The court also found no merit in the conviction appeal, affirming the trial judge's reliance on regulatory maps for jurisdiction, and no basis to interfere with the sentence, which included a $25,000 fine and a property rehabilitation order.

The parties entered into a contract in 1999 for the provision of market pricing data.

The appellant, a custodial bank, redistributed the data to its numerous affiliates without authorization.

The respondent discovered the breach in 2016 and sued.

The trial judge found the appellant breached the contract and awarded damages based on a rateable approach, but also awarded damages for sharing data with a specific affiliate.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the liability finding, concluding the contract only authorized the appellant itself to access the data.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's decision to change his unentered judgment and rejected the appellant's limitations defence.

On damages, the Court struck the award relating to the specific affiliate as double compensation but otherwise upheld the damages assessment, including an adverse inference drawn against the appellant for spoliation of evidence.