David Cassin

The defendant brought a motion to strike certain paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim.

Prior to argument, the parties resolved the substantive issues and agreed to amend the impugned paragraphs, but could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs, arguing the defendant's initial position was overly broad, while the defendant argued no costs should be awarded for a settled motion.

The court declined to award costs, finding it could not determine which party achieved substantial success or whether the motion was unnecessary without hearing the merits.

The plaintiff employee brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) seeking a pre-trial determination that the termination provision in her employment agreement was unenforceable.

The defendant employer opposed the motion, arguing it was an inappropriate use of the rule.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the interpretation of the termination provision was a question of mixed fact and law, not a pure question of law.

Furthermore, the court held that deciding the issue would not dispose of the action, substantially shorten the trial, or save costs, especially since the primary issue was whether the employer had just cause for termination.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order for a new Tax Court hearing before a different judge after multiple violations of official language rights of witnesses and counsel, and the related interpretation right of the unilingual party.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff Liliana Siggillino's action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The action concerned a dispute over the 2008 transfer of a family farm, where Liliana alleged misrepresentation regarding its value.

The central issue was when Liliana discovered her claim, specifically when she first read a 2008 property valuation report.

The court found Liliana's evidence regarding the discovery date to be contradictory and not credible, preferring her earlier statements and a 2013 letter indicating she read the report in 2008.

The court also found that a reasonable person in her circumstances ought to have known of the claim by July 30, 2008, through reasonable diligence.

Consequently, Liliana's action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision striking out their negligence claim against the Toronto Police Services Board without leave to amend.

The appellants alleged the police owed them a duty of care in investigating a crime affecting their family.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the precedent in Wellington v. Ontario established that police do not owe a private law duty of care to victims of crime and their families in relation to police investigations.

The court rejected the appellants' arguments that their case was distinguishable based on their lack of certain victim remedies or their assistance to police in the investigation.