Christopher Abel Ribeiro Afonso

The defendants moved to compel the plaintiffs to produce unredacted banking records and additional documentation to trace the source of funds.

The plaintiffs had redacted portions of bank statements, asserting irrelevance and privacy, and resisted requests for further documentation.

The court allowed the motion for unredacted bank statements, finding the plaintiffs failed to meet the high threshold for redaction, which requires both clear irrelevance and a "good reason" for non-disclosure (e.g., significant harm or public interest infringement).

However, the court denied the motion for additional documentation to trace the source of funds, as the defendants did not establish its relevance beyond an improper fishing expedition.

The court also addressed the procedure for filing sealed documents, granting a temporary sealing order to allow the plaintiffs to formally apply for a sealing order.

The appellants appealed a decision refusing to certify a class action and dismissing claims against three respondents on the basis that the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The appellants conceded that the motion judge made no error in law but challenged his application of the principles relating to the duty of care to the facts.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding his reasons correct and concluding that the appellants had pleaded no reasonable cause of action against the respondents.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's assessment of costs.

The City of Toronto brought a special case motion to determine the scope of contribution and indemnity claims between Toronto Hydro-Electric Systems Ltd. and Gonte Construction Limited following a bilateral settlement between Toronto Hydro and the City.

The court addressed three questions: (1) whether Toronto Hydro's third-party claim for contribution and indemnity against Gonte in tort was limited to Gonte's several share of liability under the Negligence Act; (2) whether Gonte could claim contribution and indemnity from the City if Toronto Hydro could claim the full amount against Gonte in tort (this question was agreed upon by the parties); and (3) whether Gonte could claim common law contribution and indemnity from the City if found liable in contract.

The court ruled that Toronto Hydro's tort claim against Gonte is limited to Gonte's several share of liability, but Gonte can pursue a common law claim for contribution and indemnity from the City if found liable in contract, given the developing nature of the law in mixed contract and tort cases.

The plaintiffs loaned money secured by a mortgage, allegedly relying on a property appraisal prepared by the defendant.

The borrower defaulted immediately, and the property was eventually sold at a loss.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant appraiser for negligence and breach of contract.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the action was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding the plaintiffs knew they would suffer a loss and had sufficient facts to sue more than two years before commencing the claim.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend her statement of claim to add her husband as a plaintiff and the third parties as defendants, arguing discoverability of new information after the initial limitation period.

The court granted the motion, finding a credibility issue regarding the timing of discoverability that warranted resolution at trial, and that the plaintiff and her husband had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in discovering the potential claims against the third parties and the need to add the husband as a plaintiff.

The appellant commenced an action in 2001 against the municipality.

After years of inactivity and failure to set the action down for trial, the motion judge dismissed the action for delay in 2015.

The appellant appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in finding inordinate and inexcusable delay, and failed to accommodate him as a self-represented litigant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the delay was indeed inordinate and inexcusable, raising a presumption of prejudice that the appellant failed to rebut.

The court noted that while self-represented litigants face challenges, they must still familiarize themselves with relevant procedures.

The defendant landlord brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a personal injury claim arising from an alleged assault at an after-hours nightclub operating in the basement of its property.

The moving party argued the action was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 and that it owed no duty of care because it had no knowledge of the alleged illegal nightclub operations.

The court found the plaintiff knew of the assault and began efforts to identify the property owner shortly after the incident, establishing that the claim was discovered well before the limitation deadline.

The court also concluded that, absent evidence the landlord knew of the illegal nightclub activity, no duty of care arose.

The claim was dismissed.

Residents of a Toronto apartment building sought certification of a class action following a fire allegedly caused by negligent maintenance of electrical systems and smart meters.

The proposed class sued the building owner, property managers, superintendent, and the electricity distributor.

The electricity distributor opposed certification, arguing the claim failed to disclose a viable negligence cause of action and that the certification criteria were not met.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed a viable negligence claim against the distributor and that the statutory and regulatory framework governing electricity distribution did not negate the claim at the certification stage.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding with a modified class definition excluding residents operating marijuana grow‑ops in the building.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision granting a partial award for storage and demurrage charges in an arbitrary amount and directing the balance to trial.

Both parties agreed the motion judge erred in this regard.

The appellant sought to have the entire matter sent to trial, while the respondent cross-appealed for summary judgment for the full amount claimed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the cross-appeal, finding that the appellant failed to put its best foot forward on the summary judgment motion to dispute the quantum or the invoices once the respondent's entitlement to a lien was established.

The respondent was granted judgment for the full amount claimed.