F. Bruce Fitzpatrick

The plaintiff, owner of a longstanding craft beer competition, brought a motion for an interim injunction to prevent the defendants from holding a competing national craft beer competition.

The plaintiff alleged that a former employee, now working for the defendant association, misused confidential financial and business information obtained during his employment and during subsequent failed negotiations to purchase the plaintiff's competition.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test and found a serious issue to be tried, presumed irreparable harm due to the nature of the confidential business information, and determined the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

A time-limited injunction was granted until September 1, 2022.

The applicant and one of the respondents, siblings and co-estate trustees, sought directions on six issues regarding the administration of their mother's estate.

The court denied requests to have the estate pay the trustees' legal fees, finding the litigation was personal and adversarial.

The court also resolved disputes over rent-free occupation of estate property, an estate vehicle, and a loan.

Finally, the court awarded $25,000 in total executor compensation, split equally between the two trustees, noting their poor cooperation and the excessive time taken to administer the estate.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an order to continue the examination for discovery of the defendant's representative for a further 4.5 days, while the defendant submitted that only one further day was appropriate.

The action involves claims of defamation and intentional interference with economic relations.

The case management judge found the motion to be a waste of the court's time and ordered a compromise of two additional days (12 hours) of discovery, noting the parties had previously consented to exceed the seven-hour limit under Rule 31.05.1.

The plaintiffs' request regarding a Request to Admit was deemed moot as the defendant had delivered a compliant response prior to the hearing.

The applicant brought a motion to remove the respondent as Power of Attorney for Property for their incapable father, citing the respondent's failure to provide proper accounts and receipts.

The court found strong and compelling evidence of neglect, as the respondent repeatedly failed to follow court orders to produce supporting documentation for expenditures.

The court terminated the respondent's power of attorney and appointed the applicant as Guardian for Property, subject to conditions preventing the father's removal from his current long-term care facility without further court approval.

To facilitate the transition, the court passed the respondent's disorganized accounts without requiring further submissions.

The plaintiff and defendant, who are brothers, were involved in a long-standing dispute over access to jointly owned camp properties via a railway crossing.

The dispute culminated in a physical altercation after the defendant locked a gate to prevent the plaintiff's access.

The plaintiff sued for nuisance, assault, and battery, while the defendant counterclaimed for property damage to his ATV and unjust enrichment for road and crossing improvements.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding the nuisance was trivial and the physical injuries were either non-compensable or sustained during a consensual fight.

The defendant's counterclaims were also dismissed, as the ATV claim was barred by the Insurance Act and the unjust enrichment claims were either statute-barred or lacked merit.

The defendant was wholly successful on a motion to set aside a default judgment and sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff failed to provide written submissions on costs.

The court considered the defendant's offer to settle the motion on a no-costs basis, which the plaintiff rejected.

Finding the hours claimed by the defendant disproportionate to the straightforward nature of the motion, the court fixed costs at $11,620.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff sued the defendant foundation after it rescinded a scholarship award following her participation in a national selection event.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that a liability waiver signed by the plaintiff barred the claim.

The court applied the Tercon test for enforcing exclusion clauses and found that the broadly worded waiver applied to the circumstances, was not unconscionable, and did not violate public policy.

The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

The applicant, charged with various drug and property offences, brought an application to exclude evidence obtained during a search of his rural property.

The police initially obtained a warrant to search for a handgun but subsequently found large amounts of cash and drugs, leading to a second warrant.

The court found the first warrant was overbroad and excised portions allowing searches of outbuildings.

The court also found the police breached the applicant's section 8 Charter rights by unreasonably seizing cash from his person during the initial entry.

Finally, the court ruled the second warrant was invalid due to improper 'adjudicator shopping' by the affiant, rendering the subsequent seizures warrantless.

The section 24(2) analysis was deferred to a later hearing.

The moving party brought a motion to remove the responding party's counsel due to a prior retainer.

The responding party consented to the order on the day the motion was to be heard.

The court found that the motion was necessary and that substantial indemnity costs would normally follow, but reduced the claimed amount on the basis of proportionality, fixing costs at $3,500 plus HST and disbursements.

The self-represented appellant moved to set aside the Divisional Court's decision dismissing his appeal from a Law Society of Ontario disbarment order, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias against the presiding judge.

The appellant argued that the judge's prior refusal to allow a lengthy factum, the scheduling of the appeal, and the conduct during the hearing demonstrated bias.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that routine procedural directions, standard scheduling practices, and normal appellate questioning do not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant sought a divorce, equalization of net family property, spousal support, and damages for assault following the breakdown of a 19-year marriage.

The court calculated the equalization payment owed by the respondent, attributing values to pre-marriage assets and jointly held property.

The court ordered the respondent to pay indefinite spousal support of $1,523 per month, imputing a nominal income to the applicant who had not worked since 2007 due to medical issues.

The court declined to order retroactive support but awarded the applicant $500 in nominal damages for a 2003 assault.

The applicant, a Near Band, challenged the jurisdiction of an arbitrator to hear a dispute arising from a limited partnership agreement concerning the distribution of gaming revenues.

The applicant argued it was not bound by the agreement because the individual who signed it on its behalf lacked authority.

The Superior Court of Justice, treating the application as a hearing de novo, found that the individual had apparent authority, no other person held themselves out as Chief at the time, and the applicant had accepted benefits under the agreement for six years.

The application was dismissed, and the arbitrator was found to have jurisdiction.

Following a trial of issues arising from an oppression remedy application, the applicant was awarded $459,200 for its shares in the respondent corporation.

The applicant sought costs, relying on an offer to settle for $350,000 that was not accepted by the respondents.

The court found the applicant beat its own offer and was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court fixed total costs at $77,000, reducing the claimed amount to reflect proportionality and the unnecessary duplication of legal work.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's motion to stay, the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $30,643.80.

The appellant argued costs should be fixed at $3,500.

The court found the respondent's claim excessive, noting that fees for two lawyers and a senior clerk were unreasonable for the motion, and the lead counsel's hourly rate was high for the Northwest Region.

Taking a global approach and considering the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, the court fixed costs at $8,500 plus HST.

In a trial of issues following an oppression application where no oppression was found, the court determined the value of the applicants' minority shareholding in a closely held corporation.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the shares were subject to an oral earn-out agreement, finding the applicant owned 20 common shares.

Relying on the jointly retained expert's valuation, the court valued the company at $2,870,000.

Because there was no finding of oppression, the court applied a 20% minority discount, valuing the applicants' shares at $459,200, and ordered the respondent corporation to purchase them.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual assault causing bodily harm, uttering a death threat, and unlawful confinement following a violent, random attack on a stranger in a public place.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 8 to 10 years, while the defence sought 4 years, citing the accused's Indigenous background and Gladue factors.

The court weighed the severe aggravating factors of the unprovoked, prolonged attack against the mitigating factors of the accused's guilty plea, remorse, and Indigenous background.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The moving party, Hornepayne First Nation, sought to stay an arbitrator's award pending its appeal.

The arbitrator had found the moving party in breach of its financial reporting obligations under a limited partnership agreement and ordered it to submit audited financial statements within 60 days to avoid forfeiture of $2.8 million in gaming revenues.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding no irreparable harm because the respondent undertook not to distribute the funds pending the appeal, and concluding the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs argued that the indefinite suspension of civil jury trials in Thunder Bay due to the COVID-19 pandemic would cause severe prejudice, including the erosion of damages due to inflation and statutory deductibles.

The defendant urged a 'wait and see' approach.

The court granted the motion, finding that the local conditions and the indefinite delay of jury trials in the Northwest Region caused real prejudice that outweighed the defendant's right to a jury trial.

The defendant hospital moved for security for costs against two groups of plaintiffs who were seeking to reopen a trial judgment under Rule 59.06 based on alleged fresh evidence.

The plaintiffs had previously lost at trial and on appeal, with significant unpaid costs awards against them.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish impecuniosity and that their Rule 59.06 motion did not have a good chance of success, as the alleged new evidence was either publicly available previously or irrelevant to the limitation period issue that defeated their claims.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post $60,000 in security for costs.

The plaintiff S.M. brought a motion to strike his jury notice, filed in 2014, seeking to proceed with a judge-alone trial in March 2021 due to anticipated delays in jury trials caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The primary defendant, Ero Longo, opposed the motion.

The court applied the "justice better served" test, considering factors such as the substantive right to a jury trial, the extent of delay, and the practicalities of trial scheduling.

The court found that a six-month delay to an October 2021 jury trial blitz was not unconscionable, especially given the plaintiff's own delays in the action and the availability of retrofitted court facilities.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice beyond delay or that a judge-alone trial would better serve justice.

The motion was dismissed, the March 2021 trial dates were vacated, and the case was placed on the October 2021 trial blitz for an in-person jury trial.

The issue of striking the jury was left open for future reconsideration if the October trial does not proceed.