Courtney Raphael

The defendant municipality brought a motion to strike the plaintiff bridge company's statement of claim, which sought contribution and indemnity for damages and legal costs arising from five nuisance actions brought by local residents.

The residents alleged that the plaintiff's boarded-up houses caused urban blight.

The plaintiff claimed the municipality unlawfully withheld demolition permits, causing the nuisance.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and that the action was not an abuse of process nor barred by issue estoppel.

The plaintiff was granted leave to amend its pleadings to better particularize misfeasance in public office and negligence.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff's claims in one of two proceedings, the court issued a supplementary endorsement to finalize the consolidation order and determine costs.

The court rejected the defendants' request to require pre-clearance of the plaintiff's Consolidated Statement of Defence.

On costs, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding partial indemnity appropriate.

Considering the plaintiff's financial circumstances and the defendants' over-lawyering, the court fixed costs at $30,000 payable to the defendants.

The plaintiff, former CEO of the defendants, sued for wrongful dismissal and related torts, alleging the defendants were common employers with his bankrupt direct employer and conspired to place it into bankruptcy to avoid paying his severance.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding the tort claims were an impermissible collateral attack on the bankruptcy orders and lacked evidentiary support.

The court also held that the written employment agreements precluded a finding of common employer liability, and that a release executed by the plaintiff in favour of the bankrupt employer's trustee operated to release the defendants as alleged joint debtors in any event.

Shareholder plaintiffs commenced an action alleging that directors and officers of a publicly traded corporation engaged in improper transactions and that certain third parties knowingly assisted in those transactions.

The moving defendants sought to strike the statement of claim, arguing that the claim improperly sought recovery for losses suffered by the corporation and therefore required leave to proceed as a derivative action under s. 246 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The court held that the plaintiffs’ claim, which sought disgorgement of funds to the corporation, was fundamentally derivative in nature and could not proceed as an oppression claim in the circumstances of a large publicly traded corporation.

The court distinguished appellate authority permitting overlap between oppression and derivative remedies in closely held corporations.

The statement of claim was struck without prejudice to the plaintiffs applying for leave to bring a derivative action.

A commercial landlord sued a tenant for rent arrears, liquidated damages under a continuous‑operation clause in a lease, and damages for failure to restore leased premises at the end of the lease.

The tenant moved for summary judgment arguing the arrears were paid and the remaining claims were statute‑barred.

The court held that liquidated damages under the continuous‑operation clause were not "rent" within the meaning of the Real Property Limitations Act but were damages governed by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Because the breach was continuous, the landlord could recover only damages accruing within two years before the action was commenced.

The restoration claim was not time‑barred because the obligation arose only upon termination of the lease.