Graeme Mew

The applicant brought an application under s. 2(5) of the Declarations of Death Act for an order declaring her husband deceased.

Her husband disappeared while on vacation in Bermuda in 2014 and had not been seen or heard from since.

The respondent life insurance company did not oppose the application.

The court found that the applicant had met the burden of establishing that her husband had been absent for at least seven years, that reasonable inquiries had been made, and that there was sufficient evidence to find he was dead.

The application was granted.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment by the plaintiff bank to obtain possession of the defendant's property, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The plaintiff sought full indemnity costs of over $88,000, citing the defendant's unreasonable conduct and frivolous motions.

The court acknowledged the defendant's conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings but balanced this against the principles of proportionality and access to justice.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The defendant was previously found in civil contempt for dishonesty, concealing assets, and breaching a Mareva injunction.

Having already served a 90-day sentence for a prior contempt finding, the court considered the appropriate sanction for this subsequent contempt.

Emphasizing that civil contempt aims at coercion rather than punishment, and noting the defendant's expressed remorse and ongoing counselling, the court declined to impose further immediate incarceration.

Instead, the court ordered the defendant to continue weekly counselling for two months and pay a $10,000 fine within 60 days, failing which a 90-day term of imprisonment would be imposed.

In a civil action concerning easements and rights of way over farm properties, the moving party (defendants) brought a motion seeking to prohibit the plaintiff from tendering updated real estate appraisal evidence, to strike a paragraph of an affidavit as hearsay, and to compel the production of accounting records.

The case management judge declined to prohibit the appraisal evidence as the plaintiff confirmed no further report would be delivered, and extended the deadline for responding evidence.

The judge also found it premature to strike the affidavit paragraph, leaving the hearsay issue for trial.

Finally, the judge ordered the plaintiff to produce its balance sheets for 2015-2020, deferring any further production requests.

The defendants brought a motion to remove Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP as lawyers of record for the plaintiff, LaSalle Electrical Contractors Inc. Norton Rose also represented the third party, Jensen Building Ltd., in this action and a related construction lien action.

The defendants argued that Norton Rose was in a conflict of interest and could misuse confidential information obtained from the third party against the defendants.

The court granted the motion, finding a potential for conflict and mischief, and ordered Norton Rose removed as counsel for the plaintiff.

A cross-motion for consolidation and waiver of the implied undertaking rule was adjourned.

The applicants sought a declaration that their use of a portion of the respondent's adjacent land for parking, a storage shed, and gardens was permitted under a 1972 easement granting a right of way for 'general recreation'.

Alternatively, they claimed a prescriptive easement or adverse possession of the land under the shed.

The court found that the installation of fixtures and routine parking did not fall within the ordinary meaning of 'general recreation' and were not reasonably necessary ancillary rights.

The claims for prescriptive easement and adverse possession were also dismissed due to insufficient evidence of continuous use and intention to exclude the true owner for the requisite periods prior to the property's conversion to the Land Titles system.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for summary judgment to recover arrears of rent from the defendant commercial tenant.

The tenant argued it was relieved of its obligation to pay rent because the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting government restrictions triggered the lease's force majeure clause or frustrated the contract.

The court found that while the government restrictions triggered the force majeure clause, the clause explicitly did not excuse the tenant from paying rent.

The court also held that the doctrine of frustration did not apply because the lease did not require the tenant to operate a retail store, the disruptions were temporary, and the force majeure clause demonstrated the parties had contemplated such circumstances.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the landlord.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an order under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act requiring the defendants to pay $8 million into court as security for an environmental contamination claim.

Prior to the motion, the parties exchanged offers to settle.

While they agreed on the security amount, they disagreed on when and how the costs of the motion would be determined.

The defendants argued a settlement was reached and brought a motion to enforce it, claiming costs were a collateral issue.

The court found that costs were an essential term of the settlement offers and, because there was no unequivocal acceptance of all terms, no binding settlement was reached.

The motion to enforce the settlement was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt against the defendant for repeatedly breaching a Mareva injunction and subsequent court orders freezing his assets.

The court found that the defendant had flagrantly and serially violated the orders by operating undisclosed bank accounts, cashing cheques at Money Mart, and continuing to conduct business and manage properties through corporate fronts.

Given the scale and audacity of the deception, the court imposed a rare custodial sentence of 90 days imprisonment for the initial contempt and found the defendant in further contempt of subsequent orders, with the penalty for the further contempt to be determined at a later date.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike a jury notice due to court availability issues in Kingston, while the defendant brought a motion to adjourn the trial so it could be heard together with a separate action arising from a subsequent 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The court conditionally struck the jury notice, noting that criminal trials take priority and a civil jury trial was unlikely to proceed as scheduled.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion to adjourn, finding that delaying a 2012 accident claim by several more years to allow the 2018 action to catch up would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The defendant Archdiocese moved to strike two paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim, arguing they improperly pleaded evidence and similar facts regarding the abuser's conduct toward another victim.

The court found that pleading the history of charges and convictions was not pleading evidence, but rather material facts relevant to the institutional defendant's alleged failure to prevent abuse.

The court also held that pleading similar facts did not add undue complexity.

The motion was dismissed, save for a few words in one paragraph that improperly pleaded argument.

Following a trial where the applicant's request for sole custody and relocation was dismissed, the successful respondent sought costs of $15,000.

The applicant argued that no costs should be awarded given the nature of the family law dispute.

The court applied the presumption under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules that a successful party is entitled to costs, noting the respondent's offer to settle matched the trial outcome.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $15,000.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action moved to strike the jury notice because pandemic-related public health restrictions made it unlikely a civil jury trial could proceed as scheduled in June 2021.

The defendant opposed, preferring to adjourn the trial until a jury was available.

The court noted that local conditions in Kingston meant no civil jury trials would be held in 2021, and an adjournment would delay the trial until at least April 2022, causing prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court conditionally struck the jury notice, ordering that if the case is called during the June 2021 sittings, it will proceed without a jury, but if it must be adjourned due to lack of judicial resources, the jury notice may be restored if a jury trial is available at the rescheduled date.

The applicant sought a stay of enforcement of an arbitral award and a stay of the ongoing arbitration proceedings pending its application for leave to appeal or set aside the award.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court also declined to stay the ongoing arbitration proceedings, citing the kompetenz-kompetenz principle, noting that such a request should be directed to the arbitrator.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the parties' six-year-old child from Brockville, Ontario to Jasper, Alberta.

The respondent father opposed the move and sought joint custody with the child remaining in Brockville.

The court applied a blended approach to the custody and mobility issues, considering the proposed relocation as part of the best interests analysis.

Finding that the child had a strong bond with both parents and the paternal extended family in Brockville, and that the mother's employment and housing plans in Alberta were uncertain, the court concluded the child stood to lose more from the move than she would gain.

The application to relocate was dismissed, and joint custody was ordered with shared parenting if the mother remained in Brockville.

The two accused were sentenced for their roles in a series of destructive crimes.

Joseph Pickstock pleaded guilty to multiple counts of fraud, arson, break and enter, and public mischief, causing extensive financial and emotional devastation to numerous victims, including an elderly man.

He was sentenced to a global term of 7 years' imprisonment and ordered to pay over $533,000 in restitution.

Robert Pickstock pleaded guilty to four counts of public mischief for diverting police attention from his brother's crimes.

He was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, 3 years' probation, and ordered to pay partial restitution.

The defendant Kaufman LLP, former lawyers for the plaintiff, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the action against them.

The grounds for the motion included that the action was commenced outside the limitation period, the plaintiff lacked standing to claim damages, the claim was duplicative, and it constituted an impermissible collateral attack on Québec Superior Court orders.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim against Kaufman LLP was statute-barred, as it was commenced well beyond the two-year limitation period from when the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the alleged professional negligence.

Additionally, the court noted that the plaintiff had not incurred personal liability or compensable loss as a result of the alleged negligence.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against Kaufman LLP.

The defendant Kaufman LLP brought a motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff, Antranik Kechichian.

The plaintiff's claim alleged negligence and breach of contract by Kaufman LLP for failing to assign a commercial lease, leading to a default judgment against Optical Vision of Canada Ltd., a company in which the plaintiff had an ownership interest.

The court found that the plaintiff had no provable, compensable loss and that the relief sought was duplicative of ongoing proceedings in Québec.

Furthermore, the action was found to be statute-barred as the plaintiff was aware of the alleged issues more than two years before commencing the action.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against Kaufman LLP.

The plaintiff brought an action against multiple defendants, including lawyers Francois Lepage and Bernier Beaudry, who represented CLE Capital Inc. in a failed equipment purchase transaction involving the plaintiff.

Lepage and Beaudry moved for summary judgment, arguing the statement of claim failed to disclose a valid cause of action against them and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff alleged the lawyers stalled the transaction and sought "legal fees and punitive damages." The court found that the lawyers, acting for the seller, did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff (the buyer).

Additionally, the plaintiff suffered no compensable loss, and the claim for punitive damages was unsustainable.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against the moving parties.

This motion for summary judgment, brought by Kaufman LLP against the plaintiff, Antranik Kechichian, concerned claims of negligence and breach of contract related to the failure to assign a commercial lease and other alleged damages.

The court found the plaintiff's claims to be statute-barred and without merit, concluding there were no triable issues.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of Kaufman LLP, dismissing the action against them.