Courtney Vanessa Raphael

The appellant agreed to sell her home at 45 Moore Avenue, Toronto to the respondents.

Between execution of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and closing, neighbouring property owners asserted ownership of a two-foot-wide strip of the driveway.

The respondents refused to close, claiming the appellant could not convey clear title to the entire driveway.

The appellant sued for damages; the respondents counterclaimed for return of their deposit.

The motion judge found in favour of the respondents, determining that the APS represented the appellant owned all of what visually appeared to be the functioning private driveway, and that the title defect was significant enough to justify refusing to close.

The appellant appealed, arguing the APS only required sale of a seven-foot-wide driveway (per the 1987 survey) and that any defect was not significant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

This decision addresses four motions in consolidated construction lien actions.

Lien claimants Vestacon Limited and Plan Group Inc. sought to validate their liens against properties owned by 1302207 Ontario Limited (Peter Co.) and 364 Richmond Street West Inc. (Richmond Co.), following the bankruptcy of the tenant, Arc Productions Ltd. The court declared all three Certificates of Substantial Performance (CSPs) invalid due to premature issuance and insufficient property descriptions.

Consequently, Vestacon's lien was found to be timely, having been registered within 45 days of contract completion.

The court also affirmed the validity of Vestacon's Section 19 notices to the landlords, establishing their liability.

Furthermore, Vestacon's lien was extended to include the 364 Richmond Street West property, and leave was granted to add Richmond Co. as a defendant.

For Plan Group's lien, while the CSPs were invalid, a genuine issue for trial was found regarding the exact date of last supply, leading to the dismissal of the owners' motion to declare Plan Group's lien expired.

The defendants in two construction lien actions, Pier 27 and L Tower, brought motions seeking orders for the plaintiff, Yuanda Canada Enterprises Ltd., to post security for costs totaling over $1 million.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the defendants failed to establish "good reason to believe" that the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The court emphasized the high threshold for such motions, requiring indicia of insolvency or instability, and noted that the certified basic holdback owed to the plaintiff by the Pier 27 Defendants, exceeding the claimed security for costs, constituted a sufficient asset.

The plaintiffs brought certification motions under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 relating to falling balcony glass panels from three condominium developments in Toronto.

Owners and residents alleged negligence, nuisance, and breach of contract against developers, builders, and related entities after balconies were sealed and glass panels replaced following safety concerns.

The defendants consented to certification subject to three caveats regarding class definition wording, certification of an aggregate damages issue, and the viability of a collateral contract claim against a developer.

The court certified the actions as class proceedings, rejecting the proposed change to the class definition and permitting the collateral contract claim to proceed as a common issue.

However, the court declined to certify a proposed aggregate damages issue due to appellate authority interpreting s. 24(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act as prohibiting random sampling of class members to determine damages.

The moving municipality sought summary judgment dismissing an action as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The dispute arose from a by‑law transferring responsibility for public transit assets and liabilities from lower‑tier municipalities to a regional municipality, including unresolved responsibility for unfunded employee liabilities.

The moving party argued the two‑year limitation period began when the by‑law took effect or when negotiations and an arbitration clause permitted referral to arbitration.

The court held that a permissive arbitration clause stating parties “may” proceed to arbitration does not trigger the limitation period.

The claim was discoverable only when municipal council formally passed a resolution denying responsibility and refusing arbitration, as municipal staff cannot bind the municipality without delegated authority.

Following dismissal of an application alleging that a municipality and its mayor and councillors conspired in bad faith to block a bridge expansion project through heritage and demolition control by-laws, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found the allegations of conspiracy, illegality, and bad faith against the municipal defendants to be entirely without merit and emphasized that unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty justify elevated costs.

Applying the principles in s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded substantial full indemnity costs to the successful municipal respondents and individual councillors, subject to proportionality considerations reflecting differing levels of participation.

The court held that both the applicants and the Canadian Transit Company—though formally a respondent but aligned with the applicants—were jointly and severally responsible for the costs award.

The defendant municipality moved for summary judgment dismissing a claim arising from a municipal tax sale in which the plaintiff’s tender bids were unsuccessful.

The plaintiff alleged that higher bids were invalid because the envelopes did not contain the words “tax sale”, the tenders used an outdated form number, and the municipality altered the prescribed tender form.

The court held that the envelopes sufficiently indicated a tax sale, the use of “Form 8” rather than “Form 7” was an insignificant irregularity where the substance of the form was identical, and added headings did not affect the substance of the prescribed form.

Applying the summary judgment framework and statutory interpretation principles, the court found the tax sale complied with the governing regulation and raised no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the claim.

A long‑serving employee brought an action for wrongful dismissal and oppression after being terminated for cause following a drunk driving accident involving the employer’s vehicle.

The employee had consumed alcohol during a lunch break, drove the employer’s truck without authorization, and caused a serious rollover collision resulting in severe injuries and a criminal conviction.

The court conducted a contextual analysis of just cause, considering the employee’s 23 years of service and clean disciplinary record against the seriousness of the misconduct.

The court held that drunk driving while operating the employer’s vehicle during the course of employment constituted serious misconduct that fundamentally undermined the employment relationship.

The wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed and the court declined to address mitigation or the oppression claim.