Doug Letto

The applicant, a minor, sought court approval for a settlement of her Statutory Accident Benefits claim and leave to amend her notice of application.

The court granted leave to amend, approved the $100,000 settlement, and approved a solicitor-client account for fees and disbursements, with the settlement funds to be paid directly to the applicant upon her 18th birthday.

The court declined to approve the contingency fee agreement due to deficiencies.

The appellant appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice dated June 27, 2017.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal was not within its monetary jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Divisional Court.

Costs were fixed in favour of the respondent.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion and the granting of the defendants' motion, the court determined the costs payable to the successful defendants.

The court rejected the defendants' request for substantial indemnity costs and found their claimed amount of $26,000 to be excessive.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The court also resolved a dispute over the discovery plan, ordering that cross-examinations could be used as examinations for discovery for trial purposes.

The parties were involved in a commercial joint venture dispute.

The defendants brought a motion to release $50,000 held in trust that stood in place of a previously issued Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a sold property.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to issue new CPLs against two other properties owned by the defendants, alleging joint venture funds were diverted to purchase or improve them.

The court granted the defendants' motion to release the funds and dismissed the plaintiff's motion for new CPLs, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a direct connection between the joint venture funds and the properties, and thus had no triable issue regarding an interest in land.

The plaintiff was granted unopposed leave to amend her statement of claim.

The plaintiff, a 59-year-old senior designer, brought a motion for summary judgment against his former employer, Thumper Massager Inc., alleging wrongful termination without proper notice or pay in lieu thereof after less than six months of probationary employment.

The plaintiff sought damages for pay in lieu of notice, expenses, and benefits.

The court found that the plaintiff was bound by the six-month probationary period in his employment contract and that the employer was entitled to dismiss a probationary employee without cause or notice, provided the assessment of suitability was not performed in bad faith.

The court determined that the defendant had provided a fair opportunity to the plaintiff and did not act in bad faith in terminating his employment.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendant.

The plaintiff sought a declaration of sole beneficial ownership of a residential property, alleging her brother, the defendant, held title as a bare trustee.

The defendant counter-claimed for a declaration of co-ownership as a joint tenant with a beneficial interest.

The court found the defendant to be more credible, concluding that he acquired a beneficial interest in the property by purchasing the ex-boyfriend's share, assuming the mortgage, and making significant contributions to improvements and arrears, which were inconsistent with acting as a bare trustee or making gratuitous payments.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and granted the defendant's declaration of 50% legal and beneficial ownership, subject to an accounting.