Gordon E. Wood

Following a successful appeal that set aside a summary judgment dismissing the appellants' claim, the respondent sought to vary the costs order.

The respondent argued that the costs of the action unrelated to the summary judgment motion should not be payable since the action would proceed.

The Court of Appeal agreed and amended its previous judgment to vacate the motions judge's costs order and award the appellants $5,447.39 for the costs of the summary judgment motion.

The appellants, former members of an incorporated church's congregation, were expelled.

They commenced an action to void the expulsion, alleging the church failed to follow its internal procedures and violated their rights.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding no underlying contract.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the church's constitution and by-laws constituted a contract binding on both members and the organization.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the contractual provisions for expulsion were breached, as the respondents failed to adduce sufficient evidence of the procedures followed.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action challenging their expulsion from the church.

The plaintiffs argued that the church's constitution and by-laws formed a legally binding contract and that they were denied procedural fairness.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Wall, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the decision of a voluntary religious organization absent an underlying legal right.

The court found no evidence of a contract or civil right, concluded the ecclesiastical issues were not justiciable, and granted summary judgment dismissing the action.

The applicant brought a motion for documentary disclosure and production from the respondent and several third parties in the context of an application to set aside a 2006 settlement and final order relating to support and property claims following the parties’ common‑law relationship.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to make full disclosure of assets and income at the time of settlement, including interests in Spanish real estate, stock options, and tax liabilities.

The court found the application to set aside the settlement was not frivolous but held that many of the disclosure requests were overly vague or overly broad.

Limited disclosure was ordered, including documentary production from a bank regarding severance and stock options, authorizations permitting the applicant to obtain the respondent’s Irish tax returns, and disclosure of addresses for Spanish properties.

Costs between the parties were reserved, and no costs were ordered for the bank.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to accommodation due to mould in his apartment.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of a Superior Court action commenced by the applicant concerning the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results.

Following an interim family law motion addressing child support, use of RESP funds for a child's post-secondary expenses, and interim spousal support, the court considered written submissions on costs.

The moving party had sought table child support and higher spousal support under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, while the responding party argued RESP funds should cover both educational and living expenses.

The court had largely accepted the responding party’s position regarding the use of RESP funds and ordered interim spousal support within the responding party’s proposed range.

Given the divided success of the motion and the fact that the final order was less favourable to the moving party than her settlement offer, the court determined that neither party achieved sufficient success to justify a costs award.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to the occupancy of accommodation because of disability and receipt of social assistance.

The applicant sought to amend his application to include monetary compensation for relocation costs, which the Tribunal granted on consent.

The Tribunal then considered whether to defer the application pending the resolution of concurrent proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board concerning mould in the applicant's apartment.

Finding a strong likelihood of duplication and inconsistent findings of fact, the Tribunal deferred the application.

The tenant moved to set aside a Notice of Abandonment and resurrect his appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision regarding non-payment of rent and unit conditions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no practical need to continue with two appeals, as the tenant had another pending appeal where he could raise his evidentiary concerns.

Furthermore, the tenant provided no explanation for his six-month delay in seeking to set aside the abandonment.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that work performed by the respondent was referable to an oral agreement to transfer properties to him.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding was supported by uncontradicted evidence and there was no basis to interfere.

The plaintiff appealed an order denying its motion to amend its pleadings to add a claim for equitable subrogation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that under Rule 26.01, the amendment must be allowed unless there is non-compensable prejudice.

The court held the claim was tenable in law and permitted the amendment without prejudice to the defendants' right to plead a limitation period defence.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order that struck her constructive trust claims on the basis of res judicata stemming from a consent order in Ireland.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that conflicting evidence regarding the scope of the Irish consent order and the respondent's domicile must be resolved at trial.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the respondent's argument that Ontario was forum non conveniens, noting that Ontario was the acknowledged appropriate forum for the appellant's support claims.

The applicant union alleged that a 'sale of a business' occurred under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act when the respondent, Beef Terminal (1979) Limited, leased the premises and equipment of the predecessor, Beef Terminal.

The predecessor operated a comprehensive meat packing business, while the respondent operated a custom slaughterhouse using the same facilities and many of the same employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the respondent acquired a coherent and severable part of the predecessor's business.

The Board concluded there was no substantial change in the character of the business to justify terminating bargaining rights under section 55(5).

The union's bargaining rights were preserved, but a related employer application under section 1(4) was dismissed.

One Board Member dissented, arguing the business character had substantially changed.