Gino Morga

The defendant solicitor brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay under the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The action, commenced in 2007, alleged professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from commercial real estate transactions in 2000 and 2001.

The court found the delay of over 15 years to be inordinate and inexcusable, noting the plaintiffs failed to take meaningful steps to advance the litigation since 2014.

The court held that the delay created an unrebutted presumption of prejudice, substantially compromising the defendant's ability to have a fair trial.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed against the moving defendant.

This endorsement concerns a costs decision following the dismissal of motions brought by the plaintiff, MDG Newmarket Inc., for consolidation and payment out of court.

The defendant, John Ernest Bechard, was fully successful in resisting these motions and was presumptively entitled to costs.

The parties could not agree on costs, leading to written submissions.

The court considered factors such as the defendant's complete success, the technical nature of the jurisdiction issue, the defendant's need for assistance due to language challenges and lack of internet access, the absence of materials filed by the defendant on the motion, the requirement for a lawyer for costs submissions, and the lack of a detailed cost outline.

The court also noted the tactical and non-resolution-oriented nature of the plaintiff's original motions.

Costs were fixed at $750.00 inclusive, payable by the plaintiff to the defendant.

This decision concerns a reconsideration of an urgency determination in a family law matter during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent father sought leave to bring an urgent motion regarding parenting time and school issues for his two children.

Initially, the court found no urgency.

Upon clarification from respondent's counsel regarding a significant number of missed parenting days for one child (Ella), the court reconsidered its decision.

The court found the issue of Ella's parenting time to be urgent, allowing a motion on this specific issue to proceed, but maintained that the school and other child's parenting time issues were not urgent.

The respondent father sought leave to bring an urgent motion concerning parenting time for the children and confirmation of their school in light of the applicant mother's relocation.

The court, operating under COVID-19 emergency protocols, determined that none of the issues raised met the criteria for urgency.

The court dismissed the urgent motion but ordered a case conference and provided guidance on parental obligations regarding children's attendance for parenting time.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order enforcing a settlement agreement between the parties.

The motion judge found that the parties had agreed to material settlement terms, including a payment of $850,000 from the respondent to the appellant, the filing of a proposal to creditors under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, dismissal of actions without costs, mutual releases, and confidentiality.

The appellant challenged the inclusion of the proposal requirement and the payment into court mechanism.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no extricable errors of law and dismissing the appeal with costs awarded to the respondent.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued the plaintiffs failed to comply with policy conditions requiring timely notice and corroboration of an unidentified motorist.

The plaintiff driver claimed her memory of an oncoming vehicle causing the crash returned gradually after suffering severe injuries and hallucinations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's credibility, recovered memory, and potential entitlement to relief from forfeiture under section 129 of the Insurance Act were genuine issues requiring a full trial.

A corporate defendant, JF Industrial Systems (Windsor) Inc., was charged with two offences under the Electricity Act: failing to apply for inspection of electrical work and operating an electrical contracting business without a licence.

The trial proceeded with evidence from an injured apprentice worker and the company's manager.

The defendant changed its plea to guilty on count two, and the prosecution withdrew count one.

The court found the defendant guilty of operating as an unlicensed electrical contractor.

The defendant was sentenced to a fine of $25,000, payable within 30 days.

The case involved a serious workplace injury to an apprentice who was electrocuted while working on electrical installations at an industrial facility.

The grandmother sought costs against the Children's Aid Society following a temporary care and custody motion in a child protection proceeding.

The grandmother argued the Society acted unfairly by failing to investigate her as a potential caregiver despite her close relationship with the children and her offer to provide care.

The Society maintained it acted professionally and in good faith.

The court found that while the Society could have been more diligent in investigating the grandmother's plan, its conduct did not amount to unreasonable, unfair, or indefensible behaviour when viewed in context of the emergency circumstances and timeline of events.

The grandmother's request for costs was denied.