Dona Salmon

Following a jurisdiction motion where the defendant insurers successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the proposed class actions, the insurers sought costs of approximately $620,000.

The court found this request preposterous and excessive, fixing costs payable by the plaintiffs to the 13 non-settling insurers at $28,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs payable by the government regulator to the plaintiffs were settled at $12,500.

The plaintiffs filed proposed class actions against 15 auto insurers and the provincial regulator, FSCO, alleging improper deduction of HST from statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurers brought motions to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes.

The court agreed, dismissing the actions against the insurers and refusing to approve two early settlements, as the claims fell squarely within the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

However, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against FSCO for regulatory negligence, as those allegations did not directly concern benefit entitlements or amounts.

The Crown and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought motions to transfer four related Small Claims Court actions to the Superior Court of Justice.

The self-represented plaintiffs, former employees affected by a 1998 pension divestment, opposed the transfer.

The court applied the factors from Farlow v. Hospital for Sick Children, balancing the complexity of issues, need for expert evidence, and discovery against access to justice concerns.

The court concluded that the moving parties failed to demonstrate that the claims could not be fairly and justly resolved in the Small Claims Court, and dismissed the motions.

The applicant retailer sought a temporary stay of a six‑month prohibition order issued under the Smoke Free Ontario Act preventing the sale of tobacco products following two convictions for selling tobacco to minors.

The motion was brought pending appeals and an intended judicial review raising issues of procedural fairness, constitutional validity, and Charter rights.

Applying the RJR‑MacDonald test for interlocutory relief, the court held that no serious issue to be tried was established because the prohibition was mandatory once two convictions occurred and involved no discretionary decision subject to review.

The court further found that the alleged financial losses were purely monetary and did not constitute irreparable harm.

The balance of convenience favoured the public interest in protecting minors from tobacco access.

The applicants obtained a $1.5 million judgment against the respondent and sought to enforce a $350,000 mortgage he had placed on a property to secure the debt.

The respondent held the property as an estate trustee for his mother's estate, with himself and his two brothers as equal beneficiaries.

One brother brought a counter-application claiming sole ownership of the property based on an oral agreement with their late mother.

The court dismissed the counter-application, finding the oral agreement void under the Statute of Frauds and that the property interests had vested in the three brothers.

The court held the mortgage was valid but only enforceable against the respondent's one-third interest in the property, and granted the applicants the right to seek partition and sale.