Claire Frances McNevin

The plaintiffs, Tyler Hogan and TGH Holdings Ltd., brought a motion for default judgment against Brent Massaro and BJSM Holdings Ltd., seeking declarations of oppression and breach of fiduciary duties, and an order for the defendants to purchase the plaintiffs' interests in Thunder Bay Broom and Chemical Ltd. The defendants had been noted in default due to their deliberate failure to participate in litigation, including discovery.

The court found that the defendants' conduct was oppressive and breached fiduciary duties, warranting personal liability for Massaro.

The court ordered a buyout of the plaintiffs' shares for $13,350,000, based on an expert valuation that accounted for known misconduct, but declined to include speculative damages for unknown misconduct.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The applicant brought a motion for the production of third-party medical, financial, and legal records in a will challenge, alleging his late mother lacked testamentary capacity and was unduly influenced by the respondent.

While the applicant's own evidence was largely speculative, the court found that the respondent's cross-examination and a video of the will signing ceremony provided an ample objective basis to meet the evidentiary threshold.

The video showed the mother being coached off-screen, and the respondent's evidence regarding the mother's finances was internally inconsistent and defied common sense.

The motion for production was granted.

The moving parties, a professional engineer and a certificate of authorization holder, requested a second adjournment of their discipline hearing after retaining new counsel who was unavailable for the scheduled June 2023 dates.

The moving parties also requested time to retain an expert and review disclosure.

The Discipline Committee granted the adjournment to September 2023, ordering that the new dates would be peremptory to the moving parties.

Two registered nurses sought judicial review of decisions by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Nurses of Ontario requiring them to be cautioned and, in one case, to complete a remediation program.

The applicants argued the decisions were unreasonable because the ICRC failed to address their submissions regarding inordinate delay (over four years) and abuse of process.

One applicant also argued the ICRC failed to consider her mental health disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court granted the applications, quashed the decisions, and remitted the matters back to the ICRC, finding the decisions unreasonable because the ICRC failed to meaningfully grapple with the central issues of delay, abuse of process, and disability.

Two registered nurses sought judicial review of decisions by the College of Nurses of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC).

The ICRC had directed the nurses to be cautioned and complete remedial education after they made public statements and social media posts spreading misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and public health measures while identifying themselves as nurses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the ICRC reasonably balanced the nurses' Charter right to freedom of expression with the College's statutory mandate to protect the public interest.

The Court held that the remedial actions were proportionate and that the ICRC did not exceed its jurisdiction as a screening committee.

This is a costs endorsement following a come-back motion concerning ex parte injunctions.

The applicant successfully continued a Family Law Act preservation order against her former spouse but failed to continue a Mareva order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The court determined costs based on divided success, reasonableness of conduct, and settlement offers, ultimately awarding the applicant costs against the former spouse and the other respondents costs against the applicant, with deferred payment terms for the applicant.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay $15,000 in costs to the responding parties.

The applicant brought a motion to continue an ex parte FLA Preservation Order against her former spouse and a Mareva Order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The applicant alleged that the respondent spouse had dissipated tens of millions of dollars from the sale of a business to defeat her equalization claim.

The court found a serious issue to be tried and continued the FLA Preservation Order against the respondent spouse to prevent further depletion of his remaining assets.

However, the court dissolved the Mareva Order against the family members and affiliates, finding no demonstrated risk that they would remove or dissipate the assets from the jurisdiction.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal three interlocutory orders made by the case management judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the order for production of documents, awarding costs to the responding parties.

The court granted leave to appeal the order requiring an assessment of capacity to instruct counsel and stayed that order pending the appeal.

The motion for leave to appeal the suspension of counsel's appointment pending the assessment was dismissed.