Donald R. Good

The defendants sought leave to appeal a costs order of $55,000 made against them following the dismissal of their motion for summary judgment.

They argued the motions judge erred by failing to specify the level of recovery and by not addressing their detailed challenges to the plaintiffs' costs outline.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no conflicting decisions, no obvious error in the motions judge's exercise of discretion, and no issue of general importance that transcended the interests of the parties.

The defendants appealed an order of a Master dismissing their motion for a sealing order over various motion materials in a consolidated commercial dispute involving allegations of conspiracy, defamation, and misuse of confidential business information.

The appellants argued the Master misapplied the jurisprudence governing sealing orders and improperly rejected affidavit evidence under rule 39.01(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the Master committed no palpable and overriding error and correctly applied the open courts principle and the test articulated in Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance).

The evidence did not establish that the documents contained confidential or commercially sensitive information warranting the extraordinary remedy of a sealing order.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Burnbrae defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against them.

The plaintiffs, who were competitors in the egg industry, alleged that Burnbrae conspired with others to drive them out of business by supplying deficient eggs, misusing confidential information, and interfering with contractual relations.

Applying the new summary judgment framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court found no evidence to support the plaintiffs' sweeping allegations against Burnbrae.

The court concluded that Burnbrae's actions were legitimate competitive behavior and dismissed the action against the Burnbrae defendants.

This was a costs endorsement following a family law appeal.

The court held that success on the appeal was divided and ordered that each party bear their own costs of the appeal.

The court further declined to interfere with the trial judge's costs award, finding it reasonable and noting that the result of the appeal would have only a modest monetary impact on the trial decision.

The parties separated after a 36-year marriage during which they operated a dairy farm.

The application judge ordered a lump sum spousal support payment, refused to allow the husband to deduct future disposition costs from his net family property, found a milk quota transfer was not a gift, and ordered the in specie division of six jointly owned farm properties.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the application judge erred in refusing the disposition costs deduction and in ordering the in specie division of the properties under the Family Law Act and Partition Act.

The properties were ordered to be sold.

The appeal regarding the milk quota and spousal support was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal or striking of allegations concerning manipulation of egg grading data and conspiracy in the Ontario egg industry.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants deliberately altered grading machine settings to include cracked or dirty eggs in Grade A packages and conspired with other industry participants to harm the plaintiffs’ business and restrict competition.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs had produced no admissible evidence and had failed to put their best foot forward.

The court held that the case involved complex factual disputes, credibility issues, expert evidence concerning egg grading technology, and significant outstanding documentary production including large volumes of electronic records.

Applying the Rule 20 summary judgment framework and the “full appreciation” test, the court concluded the motion was premature and that the issues required the full machinery of a trial.

The moving defendants sought a sealing order under subsection 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to seal various motion materials, transcripts, and future filings in a commercial civil action.

The court applied the confidentiality order test from Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), requiring proof that disclosure would pose a serious risk to an important commercial interest and that the benefits of confidentiality outweigh the open court principle.

The only supporting evidence was an affidavit from counsel asserting that certain documents contained proprietary commercial information, but the affidavit relied on belief and unsupported assertions contrary to subrule 39.01(4) and the best evidence rule.

The court found insufficient evidence of a real and substantial risk to commercial interests and declined to give weight to the contested statements.

The motion for a sealing order was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Engineer's Report and the Court of Revision's decision regarding assessments for the Van Beets Municipal Drain.

The appellant argued that his lands did not require additional drainage, that the proposed drain would interfere with his farming operations, and that the allowances provided were inadequate.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide evidence to support modifying the assessments or allowances.

The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's proposed modifications to the drainage works, finding they did not provide a sufficient outlet as required by the Drainage Act.

The appeals were denied and the Engineer's Report was confirmed.

The defendant mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff mortgagor’s action alleging an improvident power of sale of farm property, or alternatively for security for costs.

The plaintiff argued that the mortgagee failed to take reasonable precautions to obtain true market value and relied on outdated appraisals when selling the property, while a retrospective expert appraisal suggested a significantly higher value.

The court held that evidentiary gaps, including untested appraisal evidence and unanswered allegations regarding the conduct of the mortgagee’s solicitor, created genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court also refused security for costs, finding the moving party failed to establish any ground under Rule 56.01.

Both branches of the motion were dismissed.

The appellant marketing board appealed a trial decision finding the respondent abattoir was exempt from paying fees for 'barbecue' and extraprovincial hogs.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's order for an accounting regarding partially condemned hogs and the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusions based on the evidence and the parties' historical practices.

The appellants appealed a judgment deciding a matter by way of application, arguing that disputed facts precluded this procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while peripheral facts were disputed, the facts necessary to dispose of the application were not.

The court also granted leave to appeal the initial costs award, reducing it based on the proportionality principle, and awarded costs for the stay application and the appeal to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment ordering the sale of a farm property and a subsequent order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the summary judgment, agreeing that financial imperatives required the property to be sold.

The Court allowed the appeal in part regarding the second order, permitting the appellant to amend his claim, except for asserting a claim for a vesting order or proprietary remedy.

A stay on an order for exclusive interim possession was continued with conditions.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant farmer sued the respondent, claiming it supplied animal feed that caused death and illness to his livestock.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, noting the appellant failed to present expert evidence or cross-examine the respondent's affiant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly concluded the appellant failed to put his best foot forward and meet his evidentiary burden.

The applicant farm implement dealer brought a dispute against the respondent manufacturer regarding the end of their 19-year business relationship and warranty repair reimbursements.

The Tribunal divided the hearing into two phases, with Phase 1 focusing on liability.

The Tribunal found that the manufacturer did not breach section 18 of the Farm Implements Act regarding warranty reimbursements, as it paid the dealer in accordance with their existing agreement.

However, the Tribunal found that the manufacturer breached Ontario Regulation 123/06 by refusing to renew the dealership agreement, as the Regulation removed the manufacturer's contractual right to unilaterally non-renew and required that renewal approval not be unreasonably withheld.

The appellant farm corporation requested a review of a Tribunal decision that denied its request for an exemption from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario's 15% quota transfer assessment.

The appellant had sold its quota after one of its joint operators was diagnosed with terminal cancer.

The appellant argued the Tribunal made material errors of law and fact by misapplying previous exemption cases and by not hearing certain medical evidence.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request for review, finding no material error of law or fact that would likely have led to a different decision.

The appellant corporation appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of its dairy quota.

The appellant argued that the unexpected terminal illness and death of one of the farm's two primary operators constituted special circumstances warranting an exemption.

The Tribunal found that while the circumstances were tragic, the surviving operator was physically capable of continuing the operation and the decision to exit the industry was a personal choice rather than an absolute necessity.

The Tribunal concluded that granting an exemption for a personal decision to exit the industry would improperly expand the special circumstances policy, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants, rural landowners whose lands formed part of a natural gas storage pool, brought an action against the respondent gas company for breach of contract, negligence, unjust enrichment, and nuisance.

The respondent successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the Ontario Energy Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the claims.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the substance of the claims fell within the ambit of section 38 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, which grants the Board exclusive jurisdiction to determine just and equitable compensation for gas storage rights and related damages.

Following a successful appeal, the Court of Appeal received written submissions on costs.

The appellant did not seek costs for either the trial or the appeal.

Consequently, the previous trial costs order was set aside, and the court ordered that no costs be awarded for either the trial or the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) denying an exemption from a 15% transfer assessment on the sale of its milk quota.

The appellant argued the sale was forced due to the primary operator's back condition.

The Tribunal found that the operator's condition did not constitute a unique or extraordinary circumstance warranting special consideration, especially since he continued to work as a crop farmer.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings for allegedly failing to answer undertakings, and the subsequent trial judgment made in his absence.

The Court of Appeal found that the order striking pleadings was made without sworn evidence and without full disclosure by the respondent's counsel regarding the appellant's efforts to answer the undertakings.

The Court set aside the order striking the pleadings and the trial judgment, noting that striking pleadings is an order of last resort.