Colin Pendrith

The plaintiffs, who operated mobile sign leasing businesses, sued the City of Mississauga for $7.5 million in damages for negligent enforcement of a 2002 sign bylaw.

They argued their signs were 'grandfathered' and exempt from the new bylaw because the previous bylaw had expired, leaving a period of no regulation.

The court found that while the signs were lawfully erected and grandfathered, the City did not owe a private law duty of care to the plaintiffs.

The City's actions in publicizing and implementing the bylaw were protected policy decisions, and finding a duty of care would expose the City to indeterminate liability.

The action was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to strike portions of the statement of claim, including claims against an individual corporate officer and a claim for oppression under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The action alleged that a former corporate partner withdrew from a partnership while its share capital account reflected a negative balance arising from partnership drawings, resulting in claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and oppression.

The court applied the stringent “plain and obvious” test for striking pleadings and held that the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment disclosed reasonable causes of action and should proceed.

However, the oppression remedy claim lacked sufficient material facts and was struck with leave to amend.

Certain paragraphs referencing settlement discussions were also struck as subject to settlement privilege.

Following a jurisdiction motion in which the court stayed an Ontario application concerning rights under a release and settlement agreement, the successful responding party sought costs.

The court considered submissions regarding whether the unsuccessful party should nonetheless avoid a costs award because Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter and the forum issue arose from related disputes involving other jurisdictions.

The court rejected the argument that the losing party should not pay costs simply because he reasonably expected to succeed.

Applying ordinary costs principles, the court held that the successful party on the motion was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Costs were fixed in a reduced amount as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The applicant, a former officer and director of the respondent mining companies, brought an application in Ontario seeking a determination of his rights to stock options under a Release and Settlement Agreement.

The respondent moved to stay the application, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and was forum non conveniens, as the respondent intended to allege the applicant breached his fiduciary duties and the agreement in Nevada.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the agreement was made in Ontario.

However, the court concluded that Ontario was forum non conveniens for resolving the omnibus disputes between the parties.

The court temporarily stayed the application for 60 days to allow the respondent to commence an action in British Columbia or Nevada, with the stay to become permanent if such an action is brought.

The defendants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court after a motion judge dismissed their motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs’ statement of claim alleging intentional interference with economic relations.

The action alleged that the defendants disseminated defamatory communications to customers and stakeholders and intimidated customers in an effort to disrupt business relationships.

The court considered the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing leave to appeal.

It found a conflicting decision regarding the sufficiency of pleadings and whether material facts may be supplied only after examinations for discovery.

Concluding that the issues raised a serious question about the correctness of the order and warranted appellate consideration, the court granted leave to appeal on all issues.

Following a two‑day motion concerning interim relief in an estate-related civil action, both parties sought costs after investing substantial legal resources in preparing and arguing the motion.

The court determined that most of the legal work related to investigating the merits of the underlying claims and would be more appropriately treated as costs in the cause.

However, the moving party achieved limited success by obtaining interim recovery of personal property and a certificate of pending litigation relating to land.

The court therefore awarded modest partial costs for those aspects of the motion while declining to award the broader costs sought by either side.

Additional submissions regarding an alleged lien on the vehicle were refused, and security in the amount of $35,000 was ordered to be paid into court pending resolution of the action.

The plaintiff brought a motion in a dependant’s relief action under the Succession Law Reform Act seeking interim support from the deceased’s estate, interim possession of a residence, and possession of a motor vehicle allegedly gifted inter vivos by the deceased.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to support because the evidence did not demonstrate cohabitation for three years or otherwise satisfy the definition of “spouse” under the Act, nor did she establish financial need.

Interim possession of the residence was also refused because the property was owned by a family trust and there was no statutory or injunctive basis to grant exclusive possession.

However, the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case that the deceased gifted her a BMW vehicle, supported by a signed transfer and recorded statements.

The court ordered interim preservation of the vehicle and permitted the plaintiff to elect between possession with security, estate possession with security, or sale with proceeds paid into court.