David Elliot

The applicant sought the appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to a co-tenancy agreement to resolve a dispute over the conveyance of residential lots.

The respondent opposed, arguing that the agreement's 'Applicable Law' clause, which attorned to the exclusive jurisdiction of Ontario courts, invalidated the arbitration clause.

The court held that the contract must be read as a whole, finding that the specific arbitration clause qualified the general applicable law clause.

The court appointed an arbitrator to determine the dispute.

The appellant guaranteed a loan made by the respondent bank to a corporation.

After the corporation defaulted on its obligations, the bank demanded payment and successfully moved for summary judgment against the appellant.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge misinterpreted the guarantee, failed to consider whether the corporation was given a reasonable time to pay, and erred in rejecting his claim for an equitable discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's interpretation of the guarantee and concluding that the appellant failed to establish that the bank's conduct caused the corporation's default.

The plaintiffs sought clarification of a prior costs endorsement issued following an adjournment request on a motion.

The court reviewed the earlier endorsement and clarified that the costs award of $1,250 plus HST was intended to cover both the costs thrown away and the disposition of relief sought in specific paragraphs of the notice of motion.

The judge confirmed that the order was not intended to award $1,250 plus an additional amount for costs thrown away.

No further appointment was required to resolve the issue.

A status review application for Crown Wardship with no access concerning two children (ages 8 and 6) who were apprehended due to parental neglect, substance abuse, and psychological disturbance.

The court found that the children continue to be in need of protection and that Crown Wardship without access is in their best interests.

The children exhibited severe developmental delays, inappropriate sexualized behaviour, and lack of secure attachment to either parent.

Expert evidence from Dr. Ellis established that the parents lack the capacity to meet the children's profound emotional and psychological needs.

The court rejected the father's position that he could parent the children with minimal supervision, finding his credibility suspect and his denial of parenting shortfalls deeply rooted in his character.

The appellant father appealed a child protection disposition order granting Crown wardship with no access regarding two children.

He argued the trial judge erred in fact by ignoring evidence that parental substance abuse and domestic violence had ceased and erred in law by placing undue emphasis on continuity of care under s. 37(3)7 of the Child and Family Services Act while failing to properly balance other statutory factors, including cultural identity considerations for Indigenous children under s. 37(4).

The court held that no palpable and overriding factual error or legal error was demonstrated and that the trial judge had properly considered the relevant statutory factors.

The court found that the evidence regarding the harm of disrupting the long‑term foster placement supported the disposition.

The appeal was dismissed and no costs were awarded.

The moving party brought a motion to keep four trial exhibits confidential in the appeal record.

The exhibits contained proprietary business information, intellectual property, and national defence security requirements.

The court applied the Sierra Club test and found that disclosure would pose a serious risk to the moving party's commercial interests and that the public interest in non-disclosure outweighed the public interest in open courts.

The motion was granted and the exhibits were ordered to remain confidential.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision granting summary judgment to the third-party insurer, striking the appellants' third-party claim.

The Master concluded that the plaintiff's claim against the appellants fell outside the insuring agreement because the appellants were acting as a general contractor rather than a building material wholesaler, and the damages did not result from an accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the allegations clearly related to the appellants' activities as a contractor and that foundation settlement due to inadequate soil conditions could not reasonably be characterized as an accident.