David Grant Boghosian

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action by summary judgment against the Waterloo Police Board, its chief, and two police officers.

The appellant alleged that the police unlawfully disclosed to her employer that she was married to a federal parolee, causing her to lose her job as a supervisor at a halfway house.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in law or principle.

The court found that the police officer's disclosure to the parole officer was made for lawful purposes under the Police Services Act and Municipal Privacy Act, and that there was no breach of duty of care or privacy rights.

The decision addresses a motion by The Corporation of the Town of Atikokan to set aside a noting in default in a civil action brought by Melissa Bates regarding property flooding.

The court reviews the procedural history, the conduct of the parties, and the applicable legal principles under Rule 19.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court finds that, although Atikokan’s delay in delivering its Statement of Defence was unwarranted, the litigation was progressing and the delay did not fundamentally prejudice the plaintiff.

The court grants the motion, sets aside the noting in default, and provides directions regarding costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of three decisions arising from a single summary judgment motion regarding the status of a disputed portion of a road ("Road A") in the Township of Coleman.

The appellants sought a declaration that the road was a public, common, or access road to facilitate subdivision approval and claimed damages for alleged municipal misfeasance.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s use of partial summary judgment, nor in his findings that the road was neither a public nor common road.

The court also dismissed motions to admit fresh evidence and denied leave to appeal the costs order.

This decision addresses costs arising from a multi-part summary judgment motion.

The Township, as the moving party in the original summary judgment motion, sought partial indemnity costs of $69,638.46.

The plaintiffs opposed and sought their own partial indemnity costs of $28,392.61.

The court found that the Township had misrepresented the dispositive nature of the initial summary judgment motion.

While the Township succeeded in dismissing the public road and common road claims (Parts 1 and 2), the misfeasance claim and access road claim survived (Part 3).

The court awarded the Township $33,000.00 in all-inclusive partial indemnity costs for Part 1 of the motion, finding that the public road claim was the focal point.

For Parts 2 and 3, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs, acknowledging the plaintiffs' poor pleading but also the Township's overstatement of the motion's scope.

This motion sought court approval for a class action settlement concerning systemic abuse at Grenville Christian College.

The plaintiffs requested approval of the $10.875 million settlement agreement, Class Counsel's fees of $3,122,187.50, payment of the Class Proceedings Fund's levy, and honoraria for the five representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the settlement and Class Counsel's fees, finding them fair and reasonable given the significant litigation risks, particularly the erratic and limited insurance coverage available to the judgment-proof defendants.

However, the court denied the request for honoraria, emphasizing that such awards should be rare and exceptional, despite acknowledging the representative plaintiffs' valuable contributions.

This is Part 3 of a summary judgment motion brought by the Township of Coleman.

The court determined which remaining allegations from the plaintiffs' claims (misfeasance in public office and access road) would proceed to trial, following previous partial summary judgments.

The court dismissed the allegation of negligent transfer of Parcel 12907 in 1975, finding it was not properly pleaded as evidence of intent for misfeasance or estoppel.

However, it allowed other allegations to proceed, including failure to follow precedents, coercion, bad faith, misleading investments, failure to identify the end of the road, and failure to create/maintain accurate records, as these were properly pleaded and had some evidentiary value.

In this class action, the plaintiffs brought a motion, with the defendants' consent, seeking court approval for the notice of a settlement approval hearing, the notice distribution plan, the procedure for class member objections, and the appointment of a notice administrator.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed notice and distribution plan complied with the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and were consistent with practices in similar class action settlements, ensuring class members would be adequately informed of the proposed settlement and objection process.

This is the second part of a summary judgment motion brought by the Township of Coleman seeking to dismiss remaining claims by the Chitaroni plaintiffs.

The court previously ruled that a disputed road ("Road A") was not a public road.

In this part, the Township sought to dismiss claims for damages based on public misfeasance/malfeasance and declarations that Road A was an access or common road.

The court dismissed the Township's motion regarding the misfeasance claim and the access road claim, allowing them to proceed to trial.

However, the claim that Road A was a common road was dismissed.

The court also provided directions for the plaintiffs to particularize certain allegations for trial.

In a class action regarding institutional child abuse at Grenville Christian College, the court addressed the individual issues stage.

The defendants were judgment-proof and had erratic insurance coverage over the 25-year class period, creating a fairness issue where some class members would recover nothing while others would be fully compensated.

The court conditionally approved a three-step Individual Issues Litigation Plan that diverts uninsured claims to a claims program and pools recoveries from insured claims into a Distribution Fund to be shared fairly among all eligible class members.

The moving parties (defendants) brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Belobaba J. dated January 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $5,000 payable to the Foodland plaintiffs.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an action against the Regional Municipality of Durham for failing to keep a roadway in a reasonable state of repair, following a motor vehicle accident that caused life-altering injuries to the plaintiff.

The trial judge found the road was not in a state of non-repair and did not pose an unreasonable risk to an ordinary reasonable driver, also noting the driver's excessive speed and distraction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law in the trial judge's analysis.

The appellate court affirmed that the trial judge correctly applied the four-part test for municipal negligence, considering the driver's conduct as one factor among others in assessing the road's condition relative to an ordinary reasonable driver, without conflating the driver's negligence with the road's state of non-repair.

The Corporation of the Township of Coleman moved for summary judgment to dismiss an action in which the plaintiffs sought a declaration that "Road A" is a public highway.

The plaintiffs argued the road became public through common law dedication and acceptance or by by-law.

The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the claim for a public highway declaration against both the Township and Paul Chitaroni.

The court found no evidence of proper dedication by the owner (who was unaware of ownership of the disputed portion) or sufficient public or municipal acceptance.

Other claims for damages remain to be addressed.

The appellant, Qiangli Cao, appealed a summary judgment that dismissed his action for defamation, racial discrimination, and dereliction of duty against the City of Markham and Markham Public Library.

The motion judge had found the action barred by issue estoppel, as the claims largely impugned evidence previously determined in a prior action by the appellant's company (CPCL) against the same respondents.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's reasoning, confirming that the validity of the evidence had been finally determined and that the appellant was a privy to the prior proceeding.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

This is an appeal from a common issues trial judgment in a class proceeding.

The class, comprising former boarding students of Grenville Christian College, alleged systemic negligence and breach of fiduciary duties due to abusive practices including corporal punishment and public humiliation.

The trial judge found class-wide breaches and awarded punitive damages.

The appellants sought to set aside the judgment, arguing errors in the trial judge's use of expert evidence and treatment of defence evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings of systemic negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and that punitive damages were warranted, concluding that the trial judge's assessment of evidence and application of legal principles were sound.

This endorsement concerns a request to reconsider a costs disposition made on July 27, 2021.

The moving party for the reconsideration (respondents in the underlying appeal) had their costs submissions filed late and not forwarded to the panel.

The court reviewed the submissions but found no reason to vary the original costs order, confirming the previous disposition.

AIG Insurance Company of Canada sought substantial indemnity costs against The Corporation of the City of Markham and Lloyd’s Underwriters following a motion for reconsideration of an appeal decision.

The court found the reconsideration motion to be entirely without merit, having put AIG to needless expense.

Consequently, the court awarded AIG $13,000 in substantial indemnity costs, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable forthwith.

The respondents (moving parties on the motion) sought reconsideration of a Court of Appeal decision rendered 15 months prior.

The motion was dismissed as lacking merit, with the court emphasizing the principle of finality.

Reconsideration is rarely granted, especially when the moving party has already unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the same arguments, which was dismissed.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to stay the proceedings in favour of arbitration, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing that a letter demanding the plaintiff discontinue the action constituted a Rule 49 offer.

The court held that the letter did not contain a genuine compromise and therefore did not attract substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs in the amount of $43,805.72, finding the amount reasonable for a stay motion involving considerable legal research.

The Plaintiffs (UDG) sought an anti-suit injunction to halt proceedings against them in Dubai and Singapore concerning an alleged outstanding debt and guarantees.

The Defendants (TAP) cross-moved to dismiss or stay the Ontario action for lack of jurisdiction or forum non conveniens, citing forum selection clauses.

The court denied the anti-suit injunction, finding UDG failed to meet the Amchem test, particularly by not pursuing stays in the foreign jurisdictions.

The court also found Ontario was not the natural forum, given the parties' residences, witness locations, and applicable foreign laws.

The Plaintiffs' Ontario action was permanently stayed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed an appeal by an insurer, Co-operators General Insurance Company, finding it had no duty to defend its insureds, Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (FCS) and Laridae Communications Inc., against a class action and a third-party claim.

The claims arose from a data breach where a confidential report was hacked from FCS's website and posted online.

The court held that the data exclusion clauses in both the Commercial General Liability (CGL) and Professional Liability policies were unambiguous and clearly excluded coverage for claims arising from the electronic distribution or display of data.

The court rejected arguments that the exclusion clauses nullified the policies or that there were non-electronic claims, emphasizing that the substance of the claims solely related to online data dissemination.