C.T. Hackland

The defendant successfully brought a summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff's action for solicitor negligence on the basis of lack of standing, res judicata, and abuse of process.

The defendant sought costs of the motion and the action on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the hours expended and rates charged by the defendant's counsel to be reasonable and modest.

Costs were awarded to the defendant in the fixed sum of $7,960 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff property owner sought declarations that her building was originally constructed as two semi-detached units or, alternatively, that she was entitled to four residential units based on a legal non-conforming use.

The municipality had placed a stop-work order on her renovations.

Relying on expert architectural and engineering evidence, the court found the building was originally constructed in 1906 as a single-family dwelling with internal access between areas.

The court also found no evidence that the building ever contained four residential units prior to the 1977 zoning by-laws.

The requested declarations were dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to destroy copies of two allegedly privileged emails produced in the defendant's affidavit of documents.

The emails contained legal advice regarding a property dispute.

The court found that the defendant had waived solicitor-client privilege by producing the documents, allowing them to be used during examinations for discovery without objection, and relying on them in communications with a co-defendant.

The motion was dismissed.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, the applicant sought costs.

The applicant had served a Rule 49 offer to settle that was more favorable than the final judgment of $35,743.13.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

After considering proportionality and the respondent's unreasonable conduct in arguing mitigation without evidence and relying on an invalid termination clause, the court fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and interest.

The respondent sought to commence a private prosecution against the Premier of Ontario regarding COVID-19 vaccine mandates, which a Justice of the Peace refused to receive.

The respondent then applied for mandamus to compel the Justice of the Peace to receive the information.

The Crown brought an application to summarily dismiss the respondent's application.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding the respondent's claims of a fake pandemic and vast conspiracy to be frivolous, vexatious, and lacking any air of reality.

Following the settlement of a motor vehicle personal injury action for $300,000 on the eve of trial, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought $97,749 in partial indemnity fees, while the defendant argued for $35,000 based on a standard settlement formula.

The court found the case sufficiently complex to depart from the standard formula, noting the aggressive litigation tactics employed by both sides over seven years.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $65,000 in fees plus HST, along with agreed disbursements.

Following a trial where the plaintiff Condominium Corporation was substantially successful in collecting common expense arrears, the court determined the quantum and scale of costs.

The plaintiff sought $58,448.97, while the defendants proposed $32,000.

Applying section 85(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and considering the plaintiff's unaccepted Rule 49 offer to settle, the court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $50,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be added to the liens registered on the defendants' unit.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 49.09(a) to enforce a settlement of the plaintiff's motor vehicle personal injury action.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing she did not clearly authorize her former counsel to settle and abandon her case.

The court found that a settlement was reached and that there were no special circumstances, such as marked inadequacy or collusion, to justify exercising its narrow discretion to refuse enforcement.

The motion was granted, the settlement was enforced, and the action was dismissed without costs.

The applicant student was unsuccessful in obtaining an interlocutory injunction to stay disciplinary decisions made by the respondent college.

The respondent college sought partial indemnity costs of $7,210.

The court found the college was entirely successful and entitled to costs, but reduced the quantum to $5,000 due to the applicant's hardship as an international student navigating the public health crisis without family support.

The accused was convicted of intentionally discharging a firearm and several other weapons offences after firing 13 shots at a fleeing vehicle in downtown Ottawa.

At the time, he was bound by a recognizance prohibiting him from possessing firearms.

The Crown sought a 9-year sentence, while the defence sought 4 years plus credit for stringent bail conditions.

The court imposed a total sentence of 8 years imprisonment, finding the offence fell at the lower end of the range for serious firearms offences since no one was injured by the accused's shots.

The court also granted 12 months of enhanced credit for the restrictive house arrest and curfew conditions the accused endured while on bail.

The plaintiff franchisor sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce restrictive covenants against the defendant franchisee, who had purported to terminate the franchise agreement and opened a competing fitness studio.

The dispute arose after the franchisor implemented a direct-to-consumer online fitness program during the COVID-19 pandemic, which the franchisee alleged constituted a fundamental breach.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding fundamental breach, the franchisor failed to establish a strong prima facie case, and the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction given the imminent expiration of the agreement and the potential loss of livelihood for the franchisee's employees.

The applicant student sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent college from evicting him from the student residence after his contract expired, following disciplinary sanctions for failing to wear a mask.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the college's decision to enter into or renew a residence agreement was a private, contractual matter not subject to judicial review, as it did not involve the exercise of a power central to the college's administrative mandate.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as relocation costs would be compensable in damages and his academic program was being delivered remotely.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion to admit the videotaped police statement of a witness who died shortly after the incident.

The witness did not see the stabbing but spoke to both the deceased and the accused on the day of the incident.

The court found the statement lacked threshold reliability due to the witness's severe liver disease, cognitive decline, and apparent bias.

The motion was largely dismissed, with the statement ruled inadmissible hearsay, save for a brief observation regarding the deceased's demeanor prior to the incident.

The accused brought an application for certiorari to quash her committal for trial and for a stay of proceedings.

During a judicial pre-trial where she was unrepresented, the Crown added a serious charge without explanation, and the accused was incorrectly advised she had no right to a preliminary inquiry and was not put to her election under section 536 of the Criminal Code.

The court found this to be a jurisdictional error that could not be retroactively corrected by the Crown withdrawing the added charge.

The committal was quashed and the matter remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice for a proper election.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed as premature.

The accused pled guilty to possession of proceeds of crime and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and crack cocaine.

The Crown and defence jointly proposed a sentence of two years less a day, but disagreed on whether it should be served in custody or as a conditional sentence.

The court found that while the aggravating factors of commercial trafficking would normally require incarceration, the collateral consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the accused's asthma tipped the scales in favour of a conditional sentence.

The applicant mortgagee sought a declaration of entitlement to a yield maintenance payment (prepayment of future interest) following the sale of two mortgaged properties by a court-appointed receiver.

The respondent mortgagors and a second mortgagee opposed the claim, arguing the mortgages were opened by the receiver's actions, triggering the equity of redemption, and that the payment offended the anti-deprivation rule and the Interest Act.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the mortgages remained closed, the receiver's actions did not constitute a realization on the security, and the mortgagee was entitled at common law to the future interest to the end of the term.

The court declared the applicant entitled to $1,473,141.82.

The applicant, a first mortgagee, sought a declaration of entitlement to a yield maintenance payment of approximately $1.5 million following the court-appointed receiver's sale of two commercial properties.

The mortgagors and a second mortgagee opposed the payment, arguing it was not contractually authorized, offended the anti-deprivation rule, violated the Interest Act, and that the receiver's sale constituted a realization on security triggering the equity of redemption.

The court held that the mortgages were closed and, under common law, the mortgagee was entitled to lost future interest upon early discharge.

The court rejected the statutory and common law defenses, noting the court orders explicitly deemed the mortgagee was not realizing on its security.

The applicant was awarded $1,473,141.82.

The defendants, engineering consultants, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a crossclaim by the co-defendant developer.

The crossclaim was a subrogated claim advanced by the developer's insurer.

The moving parties argued they were additional insureds under the developer's wrap-up liability policy and thus protected by a waiver of subrogation clause.

The developer argued the waiver should not apply because the moving parties' professional services were excluded from coverage under the policy.

The court held that the moving parties were additional insureds and the clear language of the policy's waiver of subrogation clause applied, regardless of the professional services exclusion.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the crossclaim was dismissed.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and various firearms offences after shooting a man during a drug deal.

The accused testified that he attended the apartment to sell drugs, but the victim pulled a gun and attempted to rob him.

A struggle ensued, the accused gained control of the gun, and shot the victim as he lunged at him.

The court found the accused's version of events plausible and held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting in self-defence.

The accused was acquitted of attempted murder and related assault charges, but convicted of firearms offences for possessing the restricted weapon after fleeing the scene.

The Attorney General brought a motion under the Civil Remedies Act to approve a settlement with the mother of the deceased, whose estate's assets were subject to civil forfeiture proceedings as alleged proceeds of crime.

The mother claimed she had advanced funds to her son to renovate his property and held a promissory note.

The estate trustee opposed the settlement, questioning the legitimacy of the mother's claim.

The court approved the settlement, finding the mother was a legitimate owner and the Attorney General acted reasonably in recognizing her claim, ordering $120,000 paid out of the preserved funds.