Christopher Du Vernet

The applicant sought a declaration of ownership by adverse possession of a strip of land owned by the respondent municipality.

The court applied the three-part test for adverse possession, particularly focusing on the "inconsistent use" test for municipal land held for public benefit.

While the applicant's predecessors had actual possession and intended to exclude the public, the court found that planting trees did not effectively exclude the City, as the land remained connected to a public trail and the use was not inconsistent with the City's intention to hold the land for future public use.

The application was dismissed.

This addendum to reasons for summary judgment addressed the disposition of a $50,000 US gift intended for a property for pilgrims in Poland.

The court found that the funds were misappropriated by an associate of the Plaintiff for personal use (car purchase and condominium down payment).

Despite a clear moral obligation for the Plaintiff or its associate to repay the funds, the court determined that any legal claim for their return was time-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, as the donor was aware of the misuse in 2014.

The court also found the Plaintiff's allegations of impropriety against the defendant to be false and awarded costs to the defendants.

The plaintiff, Maison Saint-Michel, alleged forgery, theft, and fraud against the defendants, Jacek Morawa and Canadian Institute of Divine Mercy, concerning a deceased donor's condominium gift and its proceeds.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.

The court found no credible evidence to support the plaintiff's allegations, noting the plaintiff's selective disclosure in a prior injunction application and its failure to respect the donor's conditional gifts.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action with costs, concluding that the donor's wishes were for the funds to benefit the Polish Catholic community through the defendants, not the plaintiff's general coffers.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' negligence claim for mental distress arising from the death of a family member in a helicopter crash.

The defendants argued that common law precludes recovery for mental distress resulting from the negligently caused death of a human being unless the plaintiffs witnessed the accident or its aftermath.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, the court found that geographic, temporal, and relational proximity restrictions are not absolute bars to recovery.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding it was not plain and obvious that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

The plaintiff commenced an action against his mother, sister, and others regarding a family cottage, alleging fraud and conspiracy against his sister.

The plaintiff settled with the other parties and consented to the dismissal of the action against his sister.

The sister sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found no reason to deprive the successful sister of her costs and awarded them on a substantial indemnity scale due to the unproven allegations of fraud and conspiracy.

However, finding the claimed amount of over $400,000 excessive and disproportionate to the $300,000 value of the cottage, the court referred the bill of costs to an assessment officer before fixing the final amount.

The plaintiff sought default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action after the defendant was noted in default and unsuccessful in attempts to set aside that default.

The court accepted the uncontested evidence that the employer failed to accommodate the employee’s deafness and subjected the employee to humiliating treatment culminating in termination.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded 24 months’ pay in lieu of notice and damages for loss of benefits.

The court also awarded damages for discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and punitive damages due to the employer’s egregious conduct and failure to accommodate disability.

Total damages exceeded $109,000 plus interest and costs.

The applicant sought to overturn a firearms officer's decision to revoke his licence to possess and acquire firearms.

The firearms officer revoked the licence based on concerns about the applicant's responsibility and discipline as a gun owner, citing a pattern of aggressive and irrational behaviour, multiple criminal harassment charges, a bitter feud with his cousin, threatening communications with a former girlfriend, and a suicide attempt.

The court upheld the revocation, finding the firearms officer's decision was clearly reasonable and that the applicant lacked the responsibility and discipline required of gun owners.

The court found the applicant's credibility severely compromised by his inconsistent statements and pattern of refusing to accept adverse decisions.

Following the dismissal of a motion seeking consolidation of an action and an application concerning ownership of a cottage, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to the successful defendants.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized that costs must be fair and reasonable rather than reflective of actual legal expenses.

The court assessed the roles played by counsel, the relative simplicity of the motion, and the absence of extensive responding materials.

Several defendants were awarded reduced partial indemnity costs reflecting their limited participation, while the defendant who prepared the principal responding materials received a higher award.

The unsuccessful moving party was ordered to pay the fixed costs to each successful defendant within ninety days.

The plaintiff lawyer brought a motion for summary judgment for unpaid legal fees against a former client.

The client counterclaimed for the return of fees already paid, alleging professional misconduct and incompetence.

The court found the lawyer had provided exemplary service, successfully establishing a novel tort at the Court of Appeal on a deferred fee basis.

The court granted partial summary judgment, dismissing the counterclaim and declaring the lawyer acted competently, while referring the quantum of fees to an assessment officer.