E.M. Morgan

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.

The plaintiff, an investor in a mining company, brought a motion for leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act and a motion to certify a class action under the Class Proceedings Act.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to disclose material facts about the viability of a gold mine in their prospectuses, which were later revealed in a press release, causing a drop in share price.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide expert geological evidence to explain the technical mining disclosures and establish that the alleged omissions were known or knowable at the time the prospectuses were issued.

Without such evidence, there was no reasonable possibility of success for the statutory claim and no basis in fact for the class action common issues.

The plaintiff, a 69-year-old esthetician, was terminated without cause after working for the defendant and its predecessor for 20 years.

The court found the termination clause in her employment agreement unenforceable due to a lack of fresh consideration.

Recognizing her prior service with the bankrupt predecessor employer, the court awarded a total notice period of 10 months, less the working notice already provided, resulting in 7.25 months' pay in lieu of notice.

Claims for aggravated damages, punitive damages, and age discrimination were dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an undefended action for damages following a trip and fall at the side entrance of the defendants' house, which operated as a dental office.

The court accepted expert evidence that the step was negligently constructed and in disrepair, causing the plaintiff to fracture her metatarsal and develop chronic pain syndrome.

The defendants, who were noted in default, were found jointly and severally liable for $67,980 in total damages, plus $20,000 in costs.

At a case conference in a certified class action, the parties discussed scheduling upcoming motions.

The plaintiff sought to amend the Statement of Claim to add unjust enrichment, which the defendants opposed as it could impact the certification analysis.

The defendants proposed a motion to decertify the action due to a low number of class members.

The court scheduled the decertification motion for April 2023 and directed the plaintiff to defer their motion to amend until after the decertification motion is decided.

The appellants appealed their guilty pleas and suspended sentences for assault, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.

They sought to introduce fresh evidence demonstrating they were misinformed by both their criminal and immigration lawyers regarding the immigration consequences of their pleas, specifically that they would face deportation.

The Superior Court of Justice admitted the fresh evidence, finding the pleas were uninformed and non-consensual.

The appeals were allowed, the convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The applicant, a 19-year-old charged with second degree murder, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown opposed release on all three grounds, emphasizing the tertiary ground given the gravity of the charge.

The court found that the proposed plan of strict house arrest, constant supervision by the applicant's parents as sureties, and GPS ankle monitoring sufficiently mitigated the risks under the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The court granted release but increased the proposed monetary pledge from $25,000 to $150,000 to ensure the sureties and the applicant had sufficient financial incentive to comply with the strict conditions.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to certify a class action against Ticketmaster and Live Nation for settlement purposes.

The claim alleged breach of contract, negligence, and statutory breaches arising from the defendants' failure to provide timely refunds for events postponed or cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the requirements of section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met and certified the action, approving the proposed notices of settlement approval.

The plaintiffs and defendants, former friends, invested in real estate together.

The plaintiffs claimed a 50% beneficial interest in a property registered solely in the defendants' names, based on an oral agreement and a $69,000 contribution.

The court found the oral agreement enforceable due to part performance, overcoming the Statute of Frauds, and ordered the property sold and proceeds divided.

The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' libel claim regarding false accusations of criminal conduct, finding the publication was de minimis and caused no actual harm.

The action was held to be within the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The insurer for an insolvent corporate defendant and a missing individual defendant brought a motion on short notice to intervene and appoint a litigation guardian.

The plaintiffs, who had been preparing to argue their motion for leave to proceed with a secondary market cause of action under the Securities Act, sought an adjournment due to the late service of the insurer's motion record.

The court adjourned the insurer's motion to allow the plaintiffs to respond, and consequently adjourned the plaintiffs' leave motion, as the outcome of the insurer's motion could significantly alter the defense.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a Mareva injunction, alleging the defendants were dissipating assets by selling automobiles through an intermediary.

The individual defendant appeared self-represented, stating he had retained counsel who was unavailable and had not explained the injunction terms to him.

The court declined to make a finding of contempt without responding materials but issued a final warning to the defendant, reiterated the terms of the injunction, and adjourned the motion peremptorily.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found that the offer lacked a genuine element of compromise, as it essentially demanded the defendants either purchase the property or pay equivalent damages.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $150,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, after deducting costs for an earlier consent motion and an unsuccessful summary judgment motion.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment granting specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court found no reprehensible or outrageous conduct by the defendant to justify elevated costs.

The plaintiff was awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $18,416.24.

The applicant tenant sought an injunction to prevent the respondent landlord from terminating its commercial lease and evicting it.

The landlord issued a notice of default claiming unpaid rent and taxes, but the court found the alleged arrears were entirely due to the landlord's own billing and clerical errors.

The landlord alternatively argued it could terminate the lease without default by compensating the tenant in damages, relying on contract law principles.

The court rejected this argument, holding that a commercial lease grants a possessory property right that cannot be unilaterally expropriated by the landlord.

The notices of default and termination were declared null and void, and the landlord was enjoined from terminating the lease.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action arising from a fire at an apartment building in Toronto, which allegedly caused significant property damage and personal injuries.

The fire was alleged to have resulted from a faulty electrical system or a malfunctioning space heater.

The defendants consented to certification, conceding that the statutory criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The court certified the action, defined the class and sub-classes, and approved the agreed-upon common issues.

The defendants (Underwriters) brought a motion to dismiss the class proceeding for delay under section 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act.

As a preliminary issue, the court admitted emails between counsel, finding that any common interest privilege was waived by the defendants bringing the delay motion.

On the main issue, the court declined to follow previous strict interpretations of section 29.1.

The court held that its directions at an initial case conference, which required the plaintiffs to take specific steps as soon as practicable, effectively established a timetable under section 29.1(c).

The motion to dismiss was dismissed.

The applicant condominium owner sought an oppression remedy against the condominium corporation regarding nighttime noise from the unit above, which was generated by medical equipment and nursing care for a disabled child.

The court found that the corporation had investigated the complaints, obtained expert reports, and acted reasonably.

The application was dismissed as the corporation had no authority to compel the neighbouring owner to renovate their unit, and the corporation's conduct was not oppressive.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' medical malpractice action regarding plastic surgery.

The self-represented plaintiff failed to attend the motion and had not communicated with the defendants for over a year.

The court granted the motion, noting that the plaintiff failed to produce the required expert evidence to establish a breach of the standard of care, whereas the defendants provided an unchallenged expert report.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for a Norwich order against the respondent bank.

The applicant alleged it was the victim of a fraudulent scheme and had transferred USD $5,000,000 to an account held at the respondent bank.

The court granted the Norwich order, finding that the applicant had a bona fide claim, the bank was the only practicable source of information to trace the funds, and the interests of justice favoured disclosure.

A 90-day non-disclosure order was also granted to prevent the dissipation of funds.

The plaintiff brought a motion to vary an order for specific performance arising from the defendant's failure to close a real estate transaction.

The plaintiff sought compensation for out-of-pocket expenses and increased mortgage rates incurred due to the breach.

The court granted the motion in part, awarding the plaintiff legal fees, moving costs, ongoing storage costs, and the difference in mortgage rates, to be deducted from the purchase price on closing.

The claim for rent was denied as it was offset by the savings from not paying a mortgage.