Dina Awad

The appellant railway company appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing its claims for ongoing coal tar contamination as an abuse of process.

The appellant had previously commenced an action in 1989 for historical and continuing coal tar migration, which was dismissed for inordinate delay and failure to preserve evidence.

The appellant commenced a new action in 2014 claiming damages for continuing migration since 2012.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the continuing tort claims were exhausted by the dismissal of the 1989 action, and allowing the 2014 action to proceed would undermine finality and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The plaintiff pharmaceutical manufacturer sued the corporate defendants and their sole director, a pharmacist, alleging unauthorized 'vial-splitting' of a specialty ophthalmic drug.

The individual defendant moved to strike the claims against him personally, arguing they duplicated the claims against the corporate defendants.

The court struck the intentional tort claims but allowed the negligence and unjust enrichment claims to proceed, finding it possible the individual acted in his personal capacity as a pharmacist.

The plaintiff also successfully moved to strike a paragraph in the statement of defence that referenced the contents of its complaint to the Ontario College of Pharmacists, as such contents are inadmissible under section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The plaintiff vendor commenced an action after the defendant purchaser failed to complete a commercial real estate transaction governed by an amended agreement of purchase and sale.

The purchaser argued that the contract was void due to an unmet third‑party condition and alleged failure to produce a long‑form lease.

The court found the amended agreement was a firm contract without conditions precedent and that the purchaser breached it by failing to pay the additional deposit and refusing to close in an attempt to renegotiate price.

Specific performance was denied because damages were an adequate remedy in the context of a commercial property transaction.

The court assessed damages at $300,000 based on the difference between the agreed purchase price and the market evidence available, and ordered release of the deposit to the vendor.