Charlotte Watson

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing for approval of a settlement on behalf of an adult under disability, along with related relief.

The court adjourned the motion because the plaintiff's motion record exceeded 1,100 pages, failed to comply with the local Guide to Court Approval of Settlements, and contained uncommissioned exhibits.

The plaintiff was ordered to file a revised, compliant motion record of no more than 250 pages, schedule an oral hearing with a compendium, or schedule a case conference.

The applicant challenged $776,000 in inter vivos transfers made by her elderly father to her brother, the respondent, in the 20 months prior to the father's death.

The applicant argued the transfers were void due to a resulting trust and undue influence, citing the father's dementia.

The court found that a $500,000 transfer was a valid gift, corroborated by a signed Gift Letter and the evidence of an investment advisor.

However, the court held that a $98,000 cheque and $178,000 in e-transfers were not valid gifts, as the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust with corroborating evidence.

The application was allowed in part.

The parties submitted a revised Procedural Order on consent following an adjournment of the merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued the revised Procedural Order, setting new dates for the hearing and pre-hearing steps regarding an appeal of conditions imposed on permission for the construction of an armour stone wall.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority's decision to deny retroactive approval for a 62-foot armour stone wall and related developments adjacent to the Rideau River.

The Tribunal granted Participant status to the appellant's neighbours and issued a Procedural Order setting the issues and dates for a two-day video hearing.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for breach of contract, breach of trust, unjust enrichment, and breach of the Canada Business Corporations Act on the basis that the claims were statute-barred.

The plaintiff argued that an agreement reached in 2016 extended the limitation period and that a trial was necessary to resolve factual disputes.

The court found that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the material facts regarding discoverability were not in dispute.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to act with reasonable diligence to discover its claims and that the action, commenced nearly four years after the work was completed, was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion was granted and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

The plaintiff, 1778133 Ontario Inc. (RMI), brought a motion seeking leave to correct the defendant's name and amend its Statement of Claim to include allegations of improper backcharges, tender misrepresentations, and contractual interest on overdue amounts.

The defendant, Laurin Contracting Ltd., consented to the name correction but opposed the other amendments, arguing they introduced new causes of action outside the two-year limitation period.

The court granted leave to amend for the backcharges and misrepresentations, finding they merely clarified existing claims or provided further particulars based on the original factual matrix.

However, the amendment for contractual interest on overdue accounts was denied, as it constituted a new cause of action that was statute-barred, having been discovered outside the limitation period.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority denying an application for development on a vacant lot.

The Tribunal found that the property was located within a floodplain and subject to the Conservation Authorities Act and RVCA policies.

The appellants failed to establish that the proposed development complied with the criteria for the use of fill, safe ingress/egress, and the prohibition against new development on vacant lots of record in a floodplain.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 21, the defendants sought their costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff had made sweeping, unproven allegations of fraud, theft, and professional misconduct against the defendants.

The court found that these unfounded allegations warranted elevated costs to sanction the plaintiff's reprehensible conduct.

Additionally, two defendants had made offers to settle that the plaintiff failed to accept, further justifying substantial indemnity costs.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs totaling $58,474.91.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against her former landlord, a real estate agent, a paralegal, her former spouse, and the Ottawa Police Service, alleging an 'eviction scam' that resulted in the loss of her personal property.

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to strike the claim and dismiss the action.

The court granted the motions, finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the core dispute, the claims against the real estate agent were statute-barred, and the pleadings failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action against any defendant.

The action was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious against the paralegal and former spouse, and the claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The Appellants appealed the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority's refusal to grant permission for development.

At a second Case Management Conference, the parties narrowed the issues list to five issues.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file a Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a three-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority's refusal to grant permission for development.

The parties agreed to narrow the issues for the hearing and to prepare a Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference and set dates for a three-day video hearing.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments sustained after observing her spouse's serious injuries in the hospital following a pedestrian-vehicle collision.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant was not involved in an 'accident' as defined in the Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the Greenhalgh test and found that the incident causing the applicant's impairment was the aftermath at the hospital, not the collision itself.

As the impairment did not arise out of the use or operation of an automobile, the applicant was not involved in an 'accident' and the application was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing a motion to void a lease in the context of an oppression application under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to provide further written submissions on whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal in light of s. 249 of the Act, or alternatively, whether the underlying order was final and therefore appealable to the Court of Appeal rather than the Divisional Court.

The applicant sought appointment as guardian of property for her minor son, Michael, for the sale of a Quebec condominium and for the general management of his inheritance.

The Children's Lawyer, acting as Michael's litigation guardian, agreed to the appointment for the condominium sale but opposed general guardianship, advocating for the inheritance to be paid to the Accountant for the Superior Court of Justice due to risks associated with RESPs and the administrative burden of private guardianship.

The court granted the applicant guardianship solely for the condominium sale and ordered Michael's inheritance to be paid to the Accountant, finding this to be in the minor's best interests.

The defendant moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) against the corporate plaintiff.

The court found good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario, as it had sold all its assets and receivables to a non-party.

The plaintiff argued that the non-party purchaser should be permitted to provide an undertaking for costs instead of posting actual security.

The court rejected this argument, distinguishing prior case law, and ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in instalments totaling $38,330.

The insurer appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The insurer argued that the insured's claim for long-term disability benefits was statute-barred because the two-year limitation period began when benefits were initially denied.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the limitation period did not begin to run until the internal appeal process was concluded, as it was not legally appropriate for the insured to commence an action while the appeal was ongoing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Joe Swampillai, brought an action for long-term disability (LTD) benefits against his former employer, Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada (RSA), and Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (Sun Life).

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that a full and final release signed by Swampillai barred his claim.

Swampillai pleaded unconscionability to set aside the release as it pertained to LTD benefits.

The court found that the release was unconscionable regarding the LTD claim because the transaction was grossly unfair and improvident, Swampillai lacked independent legal advice on this specific aspect, there was an overwhelming imbalance in bargaining power, and RSA knowingly took advantage of his vulnerability.

Consequently, the release was set aside as it related to the LTD claim, and the defendants' motions for summary judgment were dismissed.