E.M. Morgan

The applicant brought a motion to compel arbitration of a dispute arising from a real estate development project governed by a Co-Ownership Agreement.

The parties agreed the dispute should be arbitrated but disagreed on whether the corporate mortgagees and individual guarantors were bound by the arbitration clause.

The court applied the competence-competence principle, holding that the arbitrator must determine their own jurisdiction and decide which parties are subject to the arbitration, as the issue involved mixed fact and law requiring contractual interpretation.

The plaintiffs, who operate a specialized First Nations Specific Claims insurance business, brought a motion for an interlocutory and permanent injunction against former employees and independent contractors who started a competing brokerage.

The plaintiffs sought to prohibit the defendants from competing, soliciting clients, and using confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no non-competition or non-solicitation agreements existed, and the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the defendants misused proprietary information.

The court ordered the defendants to return and delete any of the plaintiffs' confidential information in their possession, as proposed by the defendants.

The parties, representing two factions of a divided church congregation, entered into a settlement agreement to divide church assets and funds.

The respondents partially performed the agreement but stopped making payments, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the affairs of a religious organization and that the settlement was unfair.

The court held that while ecclesiastical and theological disputes are non-justiciable, the enforcement of a settlement agreement concerning property and funds is a standard contractual matter within the court's jurisdiction.

The application to enforce the settlement was granted, and the cross-application challenging jurisdiction was dismissed.

The appellants, pre-construction purchasers of townhouses and condominiums, appealed the dismissal of their motion for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The original developer transferred the lands to a lender, Grand Grace, after defaulting on loans.

Grand Grace took title free of the unregistered agreements of purchase and sale and resold the properties.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's conclusion that the properties were not unique, damages were an adequate remedy, and the non-registration clauses in the agreements weighed against granting a CPL.

The applicants brought a motion to oppose confirmation of an Assessment Officer's report, effectively appealing the assessment of unpaid legal fees owed to the respondent solicitor.

The applicants argued the Assessment Officer erred by including a second bill, failing to follow precedent regarding complexity, and misapprehending evidence about an earnout provision.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the Assessment Officer properly followed a prior court order, correctly assessed the complexity of the share transaction, and reasonably concluded the applicants were the authors of their own misfortune regarding the earnout provision.

Costs of $12,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to evict the respondent from his unit under section 134 of the Condominium Act, citing past erratic behaviour and a fire incident for which the respondent pleaded guilty to arson by negligence.

The respondent, who suffers from mental health issues, provided evidence that the fire was caused by faulty wiring and that his condition had stabilized with new medication.

The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence of an ongoing risk of harm to justify permanent eviction, without prejudice to the applicant reviving the application if warranted.

The plaintiffs brought a post-trial motion to compel the defendants to cooperate in executing the sale and property management issues directed in a previous judgment, which found the plaintiffs to be 50% beneficial owners of the subject property.

At the hearing, the parties agreed on the form of the formal judgment and the mechanics for listing the property, managing it in the interim, and handling rental income.

The court ordered the defendants to cooperate with the plaintiffs in selling the property and to pay rents into court or trust, less agreed-upon expenses, with an order going as submitted by mutual agreement.

The plaintiff brought a motion to discontinue a proposed class action in Ontario regarding illnesses allegedly caused by the herbicide Gramoxone.

The plaintiff, a resident of British Columbia, preferred to proceed as a class member in a parallel action in British Columbia.

The defendants opposed the discontinuance, arguing it was a tactical move to avoid litigating in Ontario.

The court granted the discontinuance with prejudice, finding no prejudice to putative class members and noting that the defendants' concerns could be addressed through costs.

The court awarded the defendants costs of $71,807.32 on a partial indemnity scale.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim on a summary judgment motion, the successful defendants sought their costs.

The plaintiff agreed that the partial indemnity costs sought by two defendants were reasonable, but objected to the third defendant's request for full indemnity costs.

The court found no reason to award full indemnity costs as the plaintiff had done nothing improper, and awarded partial indemnity costs to all three defendants.

Following a successful motion for a Mareva injunction and Norwich order, the plaintiffs sought costs of $47,495.53 jointly and severally against the defendants.

The defendant Rosanna Boccia argued that costs against her should be in the cause, as she did not engage in the obstructionist tactics employed by her co-defendant son.

The court agreed that Rosanna played by the rules but noted she still lost the motion.

The court awarded total costs of $47,000, holding Rosanna jointly and severally liable for half ($23,500), while the co-defendants were held liable for the full amount.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a national class action against the defendants regarding alleged defects and failures to warn associated with Allergan breast implants, specifically concerning risks of BIA-ALCL, premature rupture, and ASIA/BII.

The court found that the plaintiffs met all the criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including demonstrating a plausible methodology for their claims through expert evidence, despite significant scientific debate.

The action was certified against all defendants, expanding a previous partial certification order.

The plaintiff moved for approval of a class action settlement, class counsel fees, and a representative plaintiff honorarium.

The action alleged the defendants failed to provide timely refunds for tickets to events cancelled or postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The settlement provided $5 credits per ticket and a cy-près distribution to a music education charity.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable, approved class counsel fees of $30,000 plus disbursements and HST, and granted a $500 honorarium to the representative plaintiff.

Following a successful 7-day trial regarding a commercial property dispute, the plaintiffs sought costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of their Rule 49 offer, and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The court found the plaintiffs' offer was more favourable to the defendants than the final judgment.

Noting the defendants' repeated failures to produce documents and delay tactics over the 9-year litigation, the court awarded the plaintiffs $650,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to discontinue a proposed employment class action against the defendant.

The representative plaintiffs were found to be unsuitable or in conflict with the class, and no replacement plaintiffs could be found.

The court granted the discontinuance without costs and without prejudice, finding no prejudice to putative class members as the limitation period had been tolled and notice would be provided to those who had come forward.

The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury action, supported by the co-defendants.

The plaintiff alleged she was injured in a rear-end collision while riding as a passenger in the defendant's ride-share vehicle.

Relying on GPS data, engineering reports, and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's medical history and statements, the court found the plaintiff's claim lacked credibility.

The court concluded on a balance of probabilities that the alleged accident never occurred and dismissed the action.

The applicant mortgagee sought possession of a residential property after the respondent mortgagor defaulted on his loans.

Unbeknownst to the mortgagee, the mortgagor had fraudulently leased the property to innocent tenants who paid $30,000 in advance rent.

The court balanced the equities between the innocent mortgagee and the innocent tenants under section 52 of the Mortgages Act.

Finding the tenants to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice, the court ordered that the tenants could remain in possession until the end of their lease, after which the mortgagee would obtain full possession.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction and a Norwich Order against the defendants, alleging they were defrauded of $775,000 through a fake cannabis business investment scheme.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and a serious risk of asset dissipation, granting the Mareva injunction to freeze the defendants' assets.

The court also granted a Norwich Order compelling third-party financial institutions to produce banking records to trace the misappropriated funds.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' defamation action as a SLAPP suit under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court applied the presumption under section 137.1(7) that the defendants are entitled to full indemnity costs.

Finding the requested amount reasonable for a complex motion, the court awarded the defendants costs of $63,572.84 on a full indemnity basis.

The applicants and respondent are neighbours sharing a mutual driveway subject to reciprocal registered easements.

The respondent erected a fence blocking the rear portion of the driveway and frequently parked at the front, obstructing vehicular access.

The applicants brought an application to enforce their easement rights, and the respondent counter-applied, arguing the easement for vehicular access had been abandoned since the rear garages were removed years ago.

The court found no abandonment, as the applicants' predecessors continued sporadic vehicular use, and held that the respondent's historical parking was permissive, not prescriptive.

The court ordered the respondent to remove the fence and cease obstructing the driveway.

The plaintiff mortgagee sought to take possession of the mortgaged property through self-help after the defendants defaulted on the mortgage.

The defendants brought a motion for a mandatory order restoring possession, arguing the plaintiff did not take possession peaceably.

The court found that while the property was not fully resided in, it was not abandoned, and the plaintiff should have given the defendants time to remove their possessions.

The court granted the defendants 30 days to vacate the property, after which the plaintiff is entitled to take physical possession.