Charles William Hourigan

Following the granting of summary judgment dismissing the action as an abuse of process, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court had previously determined that the action constituted a collateral attack on earlier decisions of the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal and that allegations of conflict of interest and improper conduct against counsel were unsupported by evidence.

The court found that the plaintiff made serious and unfounded allegations impugning the professional integrity of a lawyer and effectively advanced a conspiracy claim without evidentiary foundation.

Given the abusive nature of the proceeding and the seriousness of the unsupported allegations, substantial indemnity costs were warranted.

Costs were awarded to the defendants in significant amounts inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff was injured at a park when a cormorant struck overhead hydro wires and fell on her head.

She sued the city and the hydro company for negligence.

The court ruled the plaintiff's expert evidence inadmissible as it failed the Mohan criteria.

The court held that under the Occupiers' Liability Act, the plaintiff was deemed to have willingly assumed the risks of entering the utility corridor for recreational purposes.

The court found that the hydro company did not act with reckless disregard and dismissed the action against it.

The defendant brought a motion to stay an Ontario action arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Alberta, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs attempted to establish a presumptive connecting factor based on the fact that the defendant’s insurer was an Ontario corporation and might ultimately be liable under the Insurance Act.

Applying the framework recently articulated in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that none of the recognized presumptive connecting factors were present.

The court rejected the proposed new factor relating to the insurer’s domicile, finding it inconsistent with the principles of certainty, order, and predictability in private international law.

The Ontario court therefore lacked jurisdiction and the action was stayed.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing claims arising from a corporate transaction involving the acquisition of a golf course company.

The plaintiffs alleged oppression under the Alberta Business Corporations Act, breach of directors’ duty of good faith, misrepresentation concerning the adjusted cost base of shares, and reimbursement of legal fees.

The court held that the claim relating to legal fees was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and constituted an abuse of process given earlier appellate findings.

On the merits, the court found no oppression, breach of duty, or misrepresentation, noting that the relevant share cost base was disclosed in the transaction circular and the defendants’ dual roles were known and approved by shareholders.

Applying the summary judgment framework from Combined Air Mechanical Services v. Flesch, the court concluded the action was entirely without merit.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing an action alleging misconduct related to the loss of a company’s role as general partner of hotel-related limited partnerships.

The plaintiff alleged inducing breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and misappropriation of corporate opportunities after a replacement general partner associated with one defendant was elected following the winding up of the original corporate general partner.

The court held that the claims constituted a collateral attack on earlier court orders confirming the liquidation and the process for electing a new general partner, rendering the action res judicata and an abuse of process.

The court also found no evidence of wrongdoing by the defendants and no proof of damages arising from their conduct.

Summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The moving parties sought summary judgment dismissing an oppression claim brought by shareholders of a corporation operating hospitality assets through related partnerships.

The responding parties alleged that refusal to appoint one shareholder as a director and unilateral management decisions constituted oppression and unfair prejudice.

The court applied the summary judgment framework articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services v. Flesch and considered the reasonable expectations analysis for oppression claims under corporate legislation.

It held that the evidence disclosed no reasonable expectation that the shareholder would be appointed as a director and no conduct amounting to oppression.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the claim.

The applicant sought a determination that the Ontario court had jurisdiction to address spousal support and net family property following a divorce proceeding commenced in Texas.

The respondent argued that a Texas court had already issued a final divorce order and determined issues relating to spousal support and property rights.

The court held that where a foreign court has granted a valid divorce, Ontario courts lack jurisdiction to determine corollary relief under the Divorce Act and claims under the Family Law Act.

The court found that the applicant had attorned to the jurisdiction of the Texas court by participating in the proceedings and failing to appeal the jurisdiction ruling.

The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act was held not to apply because the foreign order denied spousal support rather than ordering payment.

Following convictions for possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after a controlled delivery operation, the court imposed penitentiary sentences on two offenders.

The intercepted shipment contained approximately 3.8 kilograms of heroin concealed in fireplace logs.

The court considered mitigating factors including stringent pre‑sentence bail conditions amounting to house arrest, positive pre‑sentence reports, lack of prior criminal records, and cooperation with police.

The court held that wilful blindness to the nature of the drug was not a mitigating factor following appellate authority.

Given the significant quantity of heroin and the offenders’ respective roles, the court imposed substantial penitentiary terms while recognizing the lesser role of one offender.

The applicant sought a review of a detention order following revocation of bail at the conclusion of a preliminary hearing on multiple sexual assault charges and a threat charge.

The preliminary hearing judge had revoked bail on the basis of committal to trial and concerns related to public protection.

The reviewing court held that committal for trial alone does not constitute a material change in circumstances sufficient to justify revocation of an existing release order.

The court further found that the preliminary hearing judge erred by conflating the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention and by relying on factors unsupported by evidence of breach.

The detention order was set aside and the applicant was released on bail with strict conditions including house arrest and supervision restrictions.

Sentencing following convictions for break and enter to commit theft, obstruction of justice, and possession of break-in instruments arising from a planned theft of vehicles from a commercial dealership.

The offender had an extensive criminal record involving repeated property offences and prior custodial sentences that had failed to deter further offending.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and separation from society, finding the offences constituted a sophisticated enterprise crime.

A five‑year penitentiary sentence was imposed for break and enter, with concurrent sentences on the remaining counts.

Pre‑trial custody credit was limited to a 1:1 ratio, with a further deduction under the totality principle.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of claims arising from a logistics services agreement.

The plaintiff alleged contractual entitlement to shortfall penalties, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of a duty of good faith.

The court held that the contract expressly barred shortfall penalties for periods shorter than a full fiscal year and refused to imply a term to allow recovery.

The court also dismissed the pre‑contractual misrepresentation claim based on an entire agreement clause and struck the good faith claim for failing to identify a contractual term performed in bad faith.

However, summary judgment was refused for alleged misrepresentations made during the contractual relationship, as factual disputes regarding falsity, reliance, and damages required a trial.

The applicants, an employee and the employer, sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Minister of Labour regarding the negotiation of a first collective agreement.

The Board had ordered first agreement arbitration, and the Minister subsequently cancelled a scheduled final offer vote.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Board did not breach its duty of fairness, the Vice-Chair was not biased, the decision to order arbitration was reasonable, and the Minister had the jurisdiction to cancel the vote.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for oppressive conduct in a joint venture for property development.

The trial judge found the appellants had extracted equity from the properties through unauthorized mortgages and transferred the proceeds to their own companies, ordering an accounting and substantial indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's valuation, cost calculations, or costs award, noting the appellants' conduct was reprehensible.

The respondents' cross-appeal regarding an erroneous deduction from their capital allocation was allowed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that found the Ontario College of Teachers discriminated against him but awarded only $10,000 in general damages and no damages for loss of income.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application.

The Court found it was reasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant lacked the required academic and language proficiency for certification, meaning he had no chance of being hired to teach in Ontario regardless of the discriminatory conduct.

The applicant sought judicial review of two interlocutory decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario: deferring her human rights complaint pending a grievance, and adding her union as an intervenor.

The Divisional Court quashed the application for prematurity, finding no exceptional circumstances or loss of jurisdiction to justify reviewing interlocutory decisions.

The court also declined to hear a Charter issue that was not raised before the Tribunal.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that granted statutory holiday pay to employees on inactive status receiving WSIB benefits.

The employer argued the arbitrator failed to address its central argument under s. 24(1) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, which would result in zero holiday pay for these employees.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable, as it lacked justification and intelligibility regarding how the entitlement to payment was determined without addressing the statutory formula.

The application was allowed and the issue remitted to a new arbitrator.

The appellants appealed a judgment granting an application to terminate their membership and occupancy rights in a co-operative and ordering a writ of possession.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge correctly applied the reasonableness standard to the co-operative board's eviction decision, which was justified by the appellants' arrears and history of late payments.

The court also found no denial of procedural fairness and upheld the application judge's exercise of discretion in granting the writ of possession.

The appellant appealed a decision striking out his Statement of Defence and granting default judgment to the respondent bank for money owed on a visa account and personal line of credit.

The appellant had previously sued the bank in Small Claims Court over a set-off of funds, which he lost.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision and noting that the appellant's defence was based on allegations already decided in Small Claims Court, rendering them subject to res judicata and cause of action estoppel.

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services applied for judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the public disclosure of the first three digits of postal codes and the number of sexual offenders in each area from the Sex Offender Registry.

The Ministry argued the Commissioner erred in interpreting the law enforcement exemptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner applied the correct legal test, did not misapprehend the evidence, and reasonably concluded that the Ministry failed to establish that disclosure would cause endangerment or non-compliance with reporting requirements.