Douglas K. Gray

The plaintiff and defendant entered into agreements characterized by the defendant as a training and brokerage license agreement.

The plaintiff paid a $29,500 fee.

After the defendant terminated the agreement, the plaintiff sought rescission and damages under the Arthur Wishart Act, arguing the relationship was a franchise.

The court found that the arrangement met the statutory definition of a franchise, as the fee was a condition of entering the relationship, the business was associated with the defendant's trademarks, and the defendant exercised significant control.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, awarding $99,835 in damages.

The court reviewed the report of a court-appointed independent solicitor who conducted the election of directors for the Muslim Association of Milton.

Neither party objected to the report or the conduct of the election.

The court adopted the report in its entirety, confirmed the elected directors for a five-year term, and approved the solicitor's account of $17,854.45 in full, ordering the Association to pay it.

The plaintiffs, judgment creditors of the defendant husband, sought to set aside the purchase and subsequent transfer of a residential property registered primarily in the defendant wife's name.

The court found numerous 'badges of fraud' and rejected the defendants' evidence that the wife solely funded the purchase.

Concluding that the husband contributed substantially to the purchase price through pooled family resources and corporate entities he controlled, the court held that the husband held an undivided one-half interest in the property and that the transfer of his interest to his wife was void as against his creditors under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The parties separated and resolved property and spousal support issues, leaving custody, access, and child support for trial.

The applicant father sought joint custody and expanded overnight access, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and maintenance of the status quo.

The court found the parties to be in high conflict with poor communication, largely due to the applicant's conduct, including persistent lateness and uncooperative behaviour.

Consequently, the court awarded sole custody to the respondent.

However, finding that maximum contact was in the children's best interests, the court granted the applicant's request for expanded overnight access on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and alternate weekends.

The offender was convicted of defrauding the victim of $200,000.

The Crown sought a three-year sentence, restitution, and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The offender argued that his prior convictions, which were entered after the commission of the current offence, could not be considered as aggravating factors under the 'Coke rule'.

The court rejected this argument, finding the prior convictions demonstrated a pattern of behaviour.

The offender was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, ordered to pay $200,000 in restitution, and ordered to pay a $200,000 fine in lieu of forfeiture.

Members of a charitable non‑profit corporation sought to set aside a board election on the basis that the process violated the corporation’s by‑laws and basic principles of fairness.

The court found that the interim board improperly expanded the membership list prior to the election and required members to reaffirm their memberships despite no authority for such requirement in the by‑laws.

The election was also conducted for a two‑year term despite the by‑laws specifying five‑year terms.

These irregularities went to the core of the electoral process and undermined the legitimacy of the result.

The court declared the election void and ordered that a new election be conducted under the supervision of an independent solicitor.

The court addressed disputes regarding the interpretation and implementation of Minutes of Settlement in estate litigation between family members and an estate trustee during litigation.

Following earlier endorsements clarifying settlement terms, the judge directed the parties to submit competing draft orders reflecting the intended disposition.

The principal issues concerned the timing of a payment obligation tied to a $500,000 amount from an estate interest and whether provisions addressing the estate trustee’s role should appear in the final order.

Applying a “final offer selection” approach, the court concluded that the draft orders proposed by the estate trustee most accurately reflected the settlement and prior endorsements.

The court therefore signed and entered those orders.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order granting the plaintiffs leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation in relation to a residential property.

The plaintiffs alleged they advanced funds toward the construction of a home that was not completed on time, resulting in termination of the agreement of purchase and sale and a claim for return of funds and an interest in the land.

The court considered the leave test under rule 62.02(4)(b) and assumed, without deciding, that there might be reason to doubt the correctness of the underlying order.

However, the court held that the proposed appeal did not raise an issue of sufficient importance beyond the parties to justify appellate intervention.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking punitive damages against his former lawyer and paralegal, alleging they fraudulently misrepresented the settlement amounts of his tort and accident benefits claims to pocket the difference.

The court found that while the evidence against the paralegal was compelling and highly suspicious, the conflicting evidence regarding the lawyer's involvement and the requirement to prove actual loss for civil fraud necessitated a full trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The accused brought pre-trial motions challenging the admissibility of a firearm seized pursuant to a telewarrant and utterances made to police during the search.

The court upheld the search warrant, finding the confidential informant's tip was sufficiently compelling, credible, and corroborated to justify the warrant, resulting in no section 8 Charter breach.

Regarding the utterances, the court found statements made to one officer were voluntary and admissible, but statements made to another officer were obtained in violation of the accused's section 10(b) Charter rights because the officer failed to advise him of the availability of duty counsel via a toll-free number.

The latter statements were excluded under section 24(2).

The applicant obtained a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) to construct industrial wind turbines.

The respondent municipality, an 'unwilling host' to wind projects, passed a resolution refusing the applicant access to a municipal road necessary for the project.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court quashed the resolution, finding that it frustrated the purpose of the provincially-issued REA and was passed in bad faith for the improper purpose of stopping the project rather than legitimately regulating roadways.

The municipality was ordered to consider the applicant's road use and permit applications in good faith.

The accused was tried without a jury on charges of attempted murder, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, robbery, aggravated assault, and attempted obstruction of justice arising from a hotel room confrontation involving a sex worker and a client.

Surveillance video, text messages, and witness testimony showed the accused entered the room with a handgun during an argument over payment and a gun discharged shortly before the complainant fled with a head injury.

The court found the accused possessed and fired the firearm and caused the complainant’s injury, but the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the injury was caused by the bullet or that the accused had the specific intent to kill.

The court also found the force used was not justified as defence of another and that the accused later attempted to influence a witness’s evidence through a letter.

Convictions were entered for possession of a loaded restricted firearm, aggravated assault, and attempted obstruction of justice, while the accused was acquitted of attempted murder and robbery.

The accused was tried for defrauding the victim of over $5,000.

The victim sought a $3.2 million loan to purchase shares in an insurance brokerage.

The accused provided a 'loan agreement' and extracted $180,000 in upfront fees from the victim, despite knowing the victim had no collateral and having no intention or ability to provide the loan.

Applying the W.(D.) principles, the court rejected the accused's testimony that the document was merely a preliminary term sheet.

The court found the accused guilty of fraud over $5,000.

Following Minutes of Settlement resolving estate litigation concerning farm property and estate assets, the parties disputed the interpretation of tax liability provisions in the settlement.

The responding party intended to pursue a tax strategy regarding estate filings and potential CRA assessments, while the moving party sought clarification and orders restricting what she characterized as a high-risk tax plan.

The court held that the Minutes of Settlement constituted a contract whose terms were clear and unambiguous when interpreted using standard contractual interpretation principles.

The agreement allocated full responsibility for tax restructuring, related transactions, and resulting liabilities to the responding party, including an obligation to indemnify the moving party and the estate trustee for any resulting liability.

The request for further clarification and restrictions was therefore dismissed.

The parties executed Minutes of Settlement following a mediation, which required the plaintiff to pay $1,325,000 to the defendant and for a farm property to be vested in the plaintiff.

A dispute arose regarding the tax consequences of the settlement.

Given the delay and the defendant's need for funds, the court issued an interim order implementing the non-controversial terms of the settlement, requiring the immediate payment of the funds into escrow and the registration of the vesting order and collateral mortgage, pending a final decision on the disputed issues.

The parties in a family law dispute involving custody of two children jointly requested a sealing order for the court file.

One of the children had gender identity issues, which had attracted media attention following a related child protection proceeding.

The court declined to seal the entire file, emphasizing the open court principle and the public interest in the debate over parental influence on gender identity.

However, to protect the child's privacy, the court ordered that the parties and children be identified by initials and imposed a publication ban on any identifying information.

The Crown brought an ex parte application seeking judicial authorization to disclose a redacted version of an accused’s statement to co‑accused without revealing that any redactions had been made.

The redactions were necessary to protect the identity of the accused as a confidential informant unrelated to the charges.

The court held that granting the request would effectively authorize the creation and use of evidence that was not what it appeared to be, which would improperly mislead participants in a judicial proceeding.

While recognizing the practical difficulty created by informer privilege and disclosure obligations in a multi‑accused prosecution, the court declined to provide such authorization.

The application was dismissed and the materials were ordered sealed.

On a motion in a family proceeding, the moving party sought removal of opposing counsel based on a disqualifying conflict of interest.

A paralegal associated with opposing counsel had previously assisted the moving party while he was self-represented by preparing his answer, financial statement, and case conference brief, and had received confidential information about litigation strategy, finances, and family circumstances.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's conflict framework, the court held that the responding party and her counsel failed to show that formal policies or effective screening measures existed to make disclosure impossible or highly unlikely.

Undertakings from the paralegal were insufficient, particularly in a very small practice.

The motion was granted and counsel was removed as solicitor of record.

The applicants sought judicial review of interim decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which declined to dismiss human rights applications under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicants argued that prior proceedings under the Police Services Act and the Regulated Health Professions Act should bar the human rights complaints based on issue estoppel and finality principles.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the Tribunal reasonably applied the Supreme Court's fairness principles from Penner to conclude that it would be unfair to dismiss the human rights applications, given the different purposes, lack of financial stakes, and statutory contexts of the prior proceedings.

The applicants sought ex parte interim relief in an application alleging extensive dishonest conduct, including impersonation of a business through a similarly named corporation, diversion of funds, and theft of business opportunities.

The court held that while the record did not show a clear likelihood that assets would be moved out of the jurisdiction, the evidence disclosed strong and compelling evidence of fraud.

Applying the Mareva injunction principles and the inference-based approach recognized in the fraud cases, the court found a real risk that assets could be hidden, dissipated, or removed.

The court granted limited ex parte preservation relief, including a Mareva injunction, freezing of bank accounts, a prohibition on payment of insurance proceeds, a stay of certain actions, and a CPL, with a prompt return date.