Douglas K. Gray

This endorsement addresses a motion in a class proceeding for approval of the notice to class members regarding a proposed settlement and class counsel's fees and disbursements.

The court approved the notice and, recognizing the challenges of assessing unopposed fee applications, decided to appoint an amicus curiae to assist in evaluating the reasonableness of class counsel's fees and disbursements.

Directions were provided for serving materials on the appointed amicus.

The moving party, Peter Grivogiannis, sought a permanent stay of a third-party claim brought by Pamela Downward, or in the alternative, an order for discovery from Rajan Kaushal.

The motion was based on the alleged non-disclosure of a settlement between Pamela Downward and Rajan Kaushal in the third-party claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the settlement did not significantly alter the litigation landscape and that the non-disclosure was due to inadvertence rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead.

The plaintiff, a Canadian refugee from Dubai, sought default judgment against the defendants for breach of a joint venture agreement and conversion of assets related to a poultry farm in the United Arab Emirates.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, due to his connections with the Dubai royal family and government, subjected the plaintiff and his family to intimidation, threats, and coercion, preventing them from seeking redress in Dubai.

The court found no real and substantial connection to Ontario based on the events, but assumed jurisdiction under the forum of necessity exception, concluding that the plaintiff reasonably feared for his life and would not receive a fair trial in the UAE.

Default judgment was granted for $16,500,000.

The applicant, an equitable receiver for a creditor, sought an order for the judicial sale of a matrimonial home under the Partition Act to satisfy outstanding costs orders against one of the co-owners.

The respondents opposed, arguing the receiver lacked standing and that a sale would be oppressive to the innocent co-owner.

The court held that an equitable receiver, when authorized, has standing to bring such an application, distinguishing it from an execution creditor.

The court exercised its discretion to order the sale, finding that the inconvenience to the co-owner was insufficient to outweigh the creditor's right to collect, especially given the substantial equity in the property.

Following convictions for lottery fraud, the Crown sought restitution, forfeiture, and fines in lieu of forfeiture against the accused.

The court ordered restitution of $12.5 million jointly and severally against the two primary offenders, declining to add interest.

The court also ordered forfeiture of approximately $7.5 million in seized funds, after returning specific amounts to innocent third parties.

Finally, the court imposed fines in lieu of forfeiture of $2.3 million each on the two primary offenders, with a six-year term of imprisonment in default of payment.

W.G. was found guilty of sexual assault (stayed) and sexual interference.

The court considered sentencing submissions, including a constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence for sexual interference under s. 151 of the Criminal Code.

The court accepted the Crown's concession that the mandatory minimum was unconstitutional, relying on prior Superior Court declarations.

Considering W.G.'s low blameworthiness (negligence in ascertaining age), lack of criminal record, and community support, the court imposed a conditional sentence of one year, to be served in the community, along with ancillary orders.

The respondent brought a motion to change a prior order regarding child support and spousal support.

The respondent sought to terminate child support for both children and opposed the applicant's claims for retroactive increases in child support and section 7 expenses.

The court granted the respondent's request to terminate child support for the son effective May 1, 2018, and for the daughter effective February 1, 2017.

The court rejected the applicant's claims for retroactive child support increases and section 7 expenses, finding no increase warranted based on the respondent's income averages and difficulties in accurately determining past special expenses or cost-sharing arrangements.

The plaintiff was terminated without cause after six years of employment as Vice-President of Finance.

Following a threatening email from the plaintiff regarding his severance package, the employer conducted a forensic investigation and discovered he had downloaded copyrighted media using peer-to-peer software on his work computer.

The employer then alleged after-acquired cause.

The court found the misconduct did not amount to just cause, as there was no nefarious intent, no actual harm to the employer, and the conduct was not incompatible with continued employment.

The court also struck down the termination clause for violating the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and awarded the plaintiff 12 months' reasonable notice.

A claim for punitive damages was dismissed.

Following the death of the children's mother, the maternal uncle applied for custody and access, alleging the father was abusive and intended to permanently relocate the children to Pakistan.

The court rejected the uncle's allegations of abuse and found the father to be a capable and loving parent.

The father was awarded sole custody.

However, recognizing the children's positive relationship with their maternal extended family and the high level of animosity between the parties, the court ordered that the uncle have access for one overnight weekend per month to prevent the relationship from being severed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against his insurer for the theft of a $550,000 heirloom ring and a gold chain while on vacation in the Dominican Republic.

The insurer denied the claim, alleging insufficient proof and lack of cooperation, but expressly declined to plead fraud.

The court found the plaintiff had fully cooperated and proven his loss.

The court granted summary judgment for the value of the ring and chain, and awarded $50,000 in punitive damages due to the insurer's bad faith conduct in stringing the plaintiff along after secretly deciding to deny the claim.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time for service of a Statement of Claim in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff deliberately delayed serving the claim due to a lack of funds.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's deliberate decision not to serve the claim constituted intentional and contumelious delay.

The court also found that the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendants.

This voir dire decision addresses the admissibility of statements and breath test results in a criminal trial for impaired driving causing bodily harm.

The accused, Yunlong Li, challenged the voluntariness of his statements and alleged violations of his Charter rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search or seizure) and 10 (right to counsel).

The court found that Li's statements were voluntary and that police had reasonable grounds for the breath demand, thus no s. 8 violation occurred.

Furthermore, the court determined there was no s. 10 Charter violation, as Li understood his right to counsel and exercised it, including speaking with a Mandarin-speaking duty counsel.

The court concluded that no special circumstances required an interpreter beyond what was provided, and any delays were reasonable.

Consequently, all challenged evidence was admitted.

The appellants, survivors and family members of victims of the Rana Plaza building collapse in Bangladesh in 2013, brought a class action against Loblaws and Bureau Veritas seeking damages for negligence, vicarious liability, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis that Bangladeshi law applied (not Ontario law), the claims were statute-barred under Bangladesh's one-year limitation period, and the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal on all grounds.

The court also addressed a costs appeal, reducing the costs award by 30% to reflect the public interest component of the claims.

The applicant sought a 50/50 parenting arrangement and an end to child support payments, following his relocation closer to the respondent, which was the condition for a review of the original custody order.

The respondent opposed these changes and sought a reduction in the applicant's parenting time, citing concerns about the child's well-being after visits.

The court, while acknowledging the applicant's move resolved the initial distance issue, declined to implement a 50/50 arrangement or reduce child support, citing the applicant's past conduct and the need for caution.

The court ordered both parties to facilitate daily Skype communication between the child and the non-visiting parent.

This decision addresses a constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment in default of payment of fines in lieu of forfeiture under s.462.37(4) of the Criminal Code.

The applicants, previously convicted of fraud, argued that these provisions violated ss. 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the mandatory minimum terms were not grossly disproportionate under s.12, considering the legislative purpose of disgorging ill-gotten gains and the availability of other Criminal Code provisions allowing for flexibility (e.g., time to pay, proportionate reduction for partial payment, inability to pay as a reasonable excuse).

The court also found no violation of s.7, as offenders have opportunities to make submissions at various stages of the process.

The applicant sought to rescind a real estate Agreement of Purchase and Sale for vacant land due to an undisclosed easement registered on title, which restricted building height to 1.5 metres for a "view corridor." The respondents argued the applicant was aware of the easement or should have been due to MLS listing disclosure.

The court held that an encumbrance on title must be specifically disclosed in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale to ensure certainty.

It found that the applicant's solicitor's letter, sent prior to the requisition date, constituted a valid objection to title as contemplated by the agreement.

Consequently, the court declared the agreement at an end and ordered the return of the applicant's deposit.

This decision addresses multiple pre-trial motions in a large-scale drug trafficking prosecution, focusing on Charter violations related to search and seizure (s.8) and the right to counsel (s.10), as well as the voluntariness of an utterance.

The court found the initial warrantless search for cocaine unconstitutional and excluded the evidence.

The initial search warrant for the Warwick premises was quashed, but other evidence seized under it was admitted.

Covert camera evidence was admitted despite an unlawful installation, but references to it were excised from subsequent Informations to Obtain (ITOs).

Tracking warrants and general warrants for other properties were largely upheld after excising unconstitutionally obtained information.

An accused's utterance was found voluntary and admitted, despite a s.10 Charter violation, as the impact on Charter rights was deemed slight and exclusion would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found her claim for attendant care and housekeeping benefits was statute-barred.

The applicant argued that the limitation period should not begin to run until she was found to be catastrophically impaired, relying on the doctrine of discoverability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the limitation period under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule is a 'hard' limitation period triggered by the insurer's clear and unequivocal refusal to pay the benefit, regardless of whether the claimant is aware they have a claim at that time.

The plaintiff, Distributions Katrina Inc., sought summary judgment for $132,105.07 for goods sold and delivered.

The defendants, Enroute Imports Inc. and Vincent P. Pileggi, resisted, asserting a defence of equitable set-off and a $5,000,000 counterclaim for alleged improper business practices.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for the undisputed debt, finding the equitable set-off inapplicable due to insufficient connection between the claims.

The plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaim was denied, allowing it to proceed to trial, but the court refused to stay the execution of the summary judgment.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission that allocated Standardbred Revenue Allocation marketing funds between two horsepersons' associations.

The applicant argued the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by recognizing a new association and altering a longstanding Memorandum of Understanding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's broad statutory powers to govern and regulate the horse racing industry in the public interest permitted it to modify existing legal rights to resolve a longstanding dispute over languishing funds.

The standard of review was reasonableness, and the Commission's decision was justifiable, intelligible, and within the range of acceptable outcomes.