David Eddenden

The plaintiff, CLC Tree Services Ltd., brought a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery, alleging that the City of London granted preferential treatment in awarding arboricultural and vegetation management contracts to Davey Tree Expert Co. of Canada, Limited to the exclusion of CLC.

The defendant, the City of London, brought a cross-motion seeking answers to undertakings and refusals from CLC's examination, arguing that CLC's allegations were based on rumours and unnamed sources and that the scope of the claim needed to be defined.

The court addressed numerous undertakings and refusals, emphasizing the importance of parties working collaboratively to resolve discovery disputes and the broad scope of oral discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted many of CLC's requests for disclosure while also ordering CLC to provide greater particularity regarding its damages claims and the factual basis for its allegations.

The court granted all relief sought by Ms. Komuro in an uncontested family law trial, including lump sum spousal support, an equalization payment, a declaration of beneficial interest in the matrimonial home, and a vesting order.

The decision details the basis for imputing income to Mr. Lu, the application of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, and the law of resulting trusts in the family context.

The court found Mr. Lu had failed to comply with disclosure and court orders, drew adverse inferences, and ordered costs against him.

The applicant sought to register a default judgment of $448,459.15 USD obtained in the Superior Court of California against the respondent.

The respondent did not file a Notice of Appearance or defend the application.

The court found a real and substantial connection between the dispute and California, as the respondent had solicited business and entered into agreements there.

Finding no defences of fraud, public policy, or lack of natural justice applicable, the court granted the order to enforce the foreign judgment.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss the Claimant's claim for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act without a hearing.

The City argued the Claimant failed to identify actionable conduct by the City or a basis for nuisance, as the City merely issued permits for construction by others.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the pleadings sufficiently set out the elements of an injurious affection claim and that there were genuine issues of fact and law in dispute that required a full hearing.

This motion concerned the interpretation and enforcement of a Separation Agreement, specifically its security provisions for spousal support, following the Respondent's terminal cancer diagnosis and alleged asset depletion.

The Applicant sought to prevent the Respondent from undermining her beneficial interest in his estate by transferring assets to their son.

The court found the Respondent breached the agreement by terminating a family trust and adding their son as a joint account holder to other accounts with the improper purpose of removing assets from the estate.

Applying principles of contractual interpretation and good faith, the court ordered damages for the trust breach as a first charge on the estate and enjoined the Respondent from further improperly depleting the large investment account or transferring assets to their son by survivorship or gift, while allowing for legitimate personal and medical expenses.

The claimant brought an appeal under the Expropriations Act claiming injurious affection resulting in personal and business losses.

The City of Toronto filed reply pleadings arguing that the works were not attributable to the City and that the claim was statute-barred.

To determine these threshold issues, the Ontario Land Tribunal ordered the City to bring a written motion.