Douglas K. Gray

The plaintiff, Crawford Packaging Inc., brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction against its former salesperson, Orazio Dorata, and corporate defendants, alleging breach of non-competition, non-solicitation, and employee poaching clauses in Dorata's employment contract, as well as failure to return company property.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the high threshold for a quia timet injunction, as no actual harm had occurred, and any future harm was speculative.

The court also noted that contractual provisions deeming fiduciary duty or irreparable harm are ineffective if not supported by legal standards.

The applicant, a 50% shareholder and operator of a pharmacy, sought an interlocutory injunction in the context of an oppression remedy application against the respondent shareholders.

The respondents had suspended the applicant's employment and changed bank signing authorities after discovering alleged self-dealing.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for broad injunctive relief that would have excluded the respondents from the business, finding it went far beyond maintaining the status quo.

The court ordered limited interim measures, including dual-signature requirements for cheques, and directed the parties to agree on a valuator for a potential buyout.

The respondent sought an urgent motion for a police enforceability clause related to a consent custody and access order, alleging the applicant was violating the order.

The court dismissed the request, finding insufficient urgency to warrant a hearing during the court system's shutdown.

The court noted that children were not alleged to be in danger and that other remedies, such as make-up access time and costs sanctions, would be available once courts resumed normal operations.

The court cautioned the applicant that the COVID-19 pandemic did not excuse non-compliance with the existing order.

The applicant sought summary judgment for spousal support.

The respondent, having recently retained counsel, requested an adjournment, which was denied due to concerns that a foreign divorce proceeding initiated by the respondent in Alabama was an attempt to circumvent the Ontario court's jurisdiction over corollary relief.

The court found that it had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act and granted spousal support on a non-compensatory basis, considering the applicant's health issues and financial hardship.

Retroactive and ongoing spousal support were awarded, and the claim for corollary relief was severed from the divorce claim.

Costs were also awarded to the applicant.

The applicant sought to set aside a binding agreement in principle regarding the transfer and sale of franchised restaurants, claiming lack of disclosure and frustration of contract due to the franchisor's requirements.

The applicant also sought interim spousal and child support.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application.

The court found that the applicant had access to competent legal and financial advice during negotiations and that there was no significant lack of disclosure.

The court also held that the franchisor's requirements did not frustrate the contract.

Applying the Miglin framework, the court found the agreement remained consistent with the objectives of the Divorce Act.

The court granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the application.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order regarding the children's school enrollment and the respondent mother's imputed income for child support.

The father sought to move the children to a school in Georgetown following his relocation, and to impute a higher income to the mother.

The court held that a material change in circumstances was required under section 17 of the Divorce Act to vary the order.

Finding no material change in circumstances regarding either the children's needs or the mother's financial situation, the court dismissed the motion to change.

The accused, Yunlong Li, sought to reopen his trial after being convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm.

The application was brought to introduce new evidence, including his own testimony and a new toxicology report, to support a bolus drinking defence.

The court applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence, which requires considering due diligence, relevance, credibility, and potential impact on the trial result, along with whether the application attempts to reverse a tactical decision.

The court found that the proposed evidence, particularly the new toxicology report, was based on an inaccurate assumption and would not have altered the conviction.

The application was dismissed, emphasizing that reopening a trial after conviction is reserved for rare and exceptional circumstances.

The plaintiff sued several police officers and the London Police Services Board for negligent investigation following his arrest for break and enter and breach of recognizance in the context of a domestic dispute.

The trial judge found two officers and the Board liable and awarded damages.

The defendants appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge relied on a legal test that was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal.

Applying the correct standard, the court held that the police acted reasonably based on the information available to them and had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrests.

The action was dismissed.

The parties signed Minutes of Settlement agreeing to appraise certain properties and to have a mediator arbitrate any equalization issues.

A dispute arose over the appraisal of one property, and the mediator issued an award stating he had the ultimate authority to determine its value, despite the parties not having executed a formal family arbitration agreement.

The husband appealed and applied to set aside the award.

The court held that while the mediator could not proceed without a formal arbitration agreement, his interpretation of his authority under the Minutes of Settlement was reasonable.

Applying the principle of good faith contractual performance, the court ordered the husband to execute the family arbitration agreement.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) upholding the Toronto Police Services Board's refusal to disclose certain records related to her 2007 arrest.

The IPC found the withheld records contained third-party personal information exempt from disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the IPC's decision reasonable.

The court also rejected the applicant's arguments that the IPC failed to properly consider her Charter rights and the public interest override, noting that the Act is not a mechanism for criminal disclosure and the public interest exemption did not apply.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a FSCO Director's Delegate that rescinded an Arbitrator's decisions awarding statutory accident benefits, a special award, and expenses.

The Divisional Court found that the Delegate's decisions regarding the special award, the benefits, and the Arbitrator's clarification decision were unreasonable, as the Arbitrator had jurisdiction and provided adequate reasons.

However, the Delegate reasonably found that the Arbitrator erred by awarding legal fees in excess of the maximum limits set out in the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The application for judicial review was granted in part, restoring the Arbitrator's decisions except for the legal costs, which were remitted for recalculation.

The applicants, second mortgagees, sought to set aside a tenancy agreement under s. 52 of the Mortgages Act after the mortgagors defaulted and a writ of possession was issued.

The mortgagors had entered into a lease with the tenants for $800 per month, significantly below the monthly mortgage payments, after the default occurred.

The court found the lease was entered into with the object of discouraging the mortgagees from taking possession or adversely affecting their interest.

Balancing the interests of the innocent tenants and the mortgagees, the court ordered the tenancy to terminate in three months to allow the tenants time to find new accommodation.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of the Ontario Labour Relations Board's decision to certify a union for a bargaining unit of employees at a specific hotel location.

The employer argued the bargaining unit was inappropriate due to employee interchange across multiple locations and that the Board denied procedural fairness by excluding certain casual employees without an oral hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's determination of the bargaining unit and employee status was reasonable and fell within its core expertise.

The Court also found no denial of procedural fairness, as the Board provided ample opportunity for written submissions.

The applicant sought an uncontested annulment of his marriage to the respondent on the ground of non-consummation.

The parties married but the respondent refused to engage in physical intimacy due to severe anxiety, and she declined to seek medical or psychological treatment.

The court reviewed the legal test for non-consummation, which requires an incapacity or inability rather than mere refusal.

Adopting previous appellate reasoning, the court inferred that the respondent's inability to consummate arose from a psychological disability and granted the annulment.

The plaintiff brought a motion to approve a $19,000,000 settlement in a class action regarding unpaid overtime, as well as a distribution protocol and class counsel fees of 33%.

The court appointed amicus curiae to assist in assessing the reasonableness of the settlement and fees.

Finding the settlement to be a rational compromise based on expert analysis of electronic timekeeping data, and the contingency fee to be consistent with similar class proceedings, the court approved the settlement, distribution protocol, and class counsel fees.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a successful motion by the defendants.

The defendants sought $200,000 in costs, arguing it was a discount from their partial and substantial indemnity costs, citing extensive motion records, witness evidence, cross-examinations, and rejected settlement offers.

The plaintiff requested costs be reserved to the trial judge or argued the claimed costs were excessive, noting their own partial indemnity costs were significantly lower.

The court declined to reserve costs, affirming the defendants' entitlement as successful parties.

However, the court found the defendants' claimed costs excessive, noting they were double the plaintiff's costs, and fixed the costs at $150,000, all-inclusive, payable within 30 days, emphasizing the need for costs to be reasonable in the circumstances.

The applicant mortgagee sought an order under s. 52 of the Mortgages Act to set aside a tenancy agreement, arguing it was entered into by the mortgagors after default with the object of discouraging the mortgagee from taking possession or adversely affecting its security.

The court applied a three-pronged test, finding that while the tenancy was entered into after a default (non-payment of municipal taxes), the mortgagors' primary object was to mitigate their financial difficulties from owning two properties, not to harm the mortgagee.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown applied to have the offender, S.S., declared a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code, seeking an indeterminate sentence, following his conviction for sexual interference.

The offender resisted, arguing he should be declared a long-term offender under s. 753.1, with a determinate sentence and a long-term supervision order.

The court declined to find the offender a dangerous offender, concluding that the Crown failed to prove a "pattern of repetitive behaviour" or "persistent aggressive behaviour" and that the conduct was "intractable" beyond a reasonable doubt.

Instead, the court found the offender to be a long-term offender, imposing a 10-year term of imprisonment and a 10-year long-term supervision order, finding a reasonable possibility of eventual risk control in the community.

The plaintiff, a wedding and convention center, sued its insurer for damages caused by a major rainstorm, claiming under sewer back-up and flood endorsements, and for business interruption, extra-contractual, and punitive damages.

The court found that only the sewer back-up endorsement applied, for which the policy limit of $500,000 had already been paid.

The flood endorsement did not apply as the damage was caused by "Surface Water" (rain pooling on the ground), which was explicitly excluded and not covered by the endorsement's definition of "flood" (overflow of a body of water).

The business interruption claim was dismissed because the business did not cease operations, and any alleged loss of revenue was attributed to the plaintiff's decision to remain open against the insurer's advice to mitigate damages.

Claims for extra-contractual and punitive damages were also dismissed due to the absence of a breach of contract by the insurer and lack of exceptional misconduct.

The plaintiff, a former franchisee, brought a motion for summary judgment against the franchisor and its principal, alleging deficiencies in disclosure documents, fraud, and forgery, and seeking damages over $2,000,000.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing numerous factual disputes and credibility issues.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that the case involved too many disputed issues of fact, including allegations of fraud and forgery, which required an assessment of credibility that could not be resolved on a paper record.

The court also noted that a complex legal issue regarding the effect of a notice of rescission required a full appreciation of the factual matrix, best achieved at trial.