Darwin Earl John Keane Harasym

The moving party sought panel review of two single-judge motion decisions: one requiring security for costs and payment of costs, and one refusing leave to obtain and file a transcript for the review.

The panel held that no error in principle, unreasonable result, legal error, or misapprehension of evidence was shown.

Both review motions were dismissed.

The plaintiff sought to vary a court-approved timetable to compel affidavits of documents and examinations for discovery prior to the defendant's summary judgment motion.

The defendant opposed, arguing the motion should proceed without delay and that the case was not complex.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that allegations of fraud and forgery involve credibility issues difficult to resolve on a paper record alone.

The court ordered a proportionate discovery process including exchange of affidavits of documents and cross-examinations on the motion, with the summary judgment motion to be heard in fall 2026.

This decision addresses several motions between the parties, including undertakings and refusals arising from cross-examinations, a request for Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) to produce certain files and employees as witnesses, and whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to file a supplementary affidavit in the context of a summary judgment motion.

The court discusses the privacy and production issues related to ESDC records, the discretion of the Minister under the Department of Employment and Social Development Act, and the test for granting leave to file supplementary affidavit material.

The court also rules on costs and sets out principles for undertakings and refusals.

The defendant, 2756646 Ontario Inc. (Mitchell Woods), brought a motion to discharge five certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) registered against nine properties.

The plaintiffs had obtained these CPLs based on Agreements of Purchase and Sale (APS) for homes that were never built.

Mitchell Woods argued the APS were not enforceable against it as it was not the named vendor and that damages would be an adequate remedy.

The plaintiffs contended that Hira Custom Homes Inc. acted as Mitchell Woods' agent, or Mitchell Woods was implicitly referenced in the APS, or a constructive trust arose.

The court found a triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' interest in the land based on agency or implied terms.

Considering the equities, particularly the advantageous terms of the APS and the defendant's failure to provide evidence of its ability to pay damages, the court dismissed the motion to discharge the CPLs.

The Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association (APMA), supported by the City of Windsor and the Attorney General of Ontario, brought a motion for an interim interlocutory injunction to restrain a protest that had obstructed access to the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario.

The protest, related to COVID-19 restrictions, caused significant economic harm to the automotive industry and disrupted the local community.

The court applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for injunctions and the modified test for statutory injunctions to enforce municipal by-laws.

The court found overwhelming evidence of serious issues to be tried (public nuisance, intentional interference with economic relations) and irreparable harm to the economy and community.

It concluded that the balance of convenience strongly favored granting the injunction, emphasizing that Charter rights to freedom of expression do not extend to unlawful acts that impede public access and cause substantial harm.

Gibbs & Associates (G.A.), a law firm, sought a court determination on the scope of an assessment of its legal accounts rendered to 1904601 Ontario Ltd. (190).

Following a lien release agreement, 190 unilaterally initiated an assessment for ten accounts, including some already paid and outside the agreed scope of five outstanding accounts.

The court characterized 190's actions as "sharp practice." The court ordered that accounts 8 through 13 be assessed, finding that accounts 1 through 4, which were paid more than 12 months prior and subject to a previous discount agreement, should not be assessed due to the absence of special circumstances and being out of time under the Solicitors Act.