Gregory M. Mulligan

Following the dismissal of an application to admit a suicide note as a holograph will, the court determined the costs payable to the successful respondents.

The court found that the applicant acted unreasonably in pursuing the application to oust legacies in the prior will, but acknowledged the estate bore some responsibility due to the testator's actions.

The court ordered blended costs, with the applicant paying a significant portion and the remainder payable out of the estate.

Following his conviction for child luring, the applicant brought an entrapment application seeking a stay of proceedings.

The conviction arose from a police sting operation targeting individuals seeking juvenile prostitutes on an online classifieds website.

The court found that the police had a reasonable suspicion to investigate the virtual space and that the undercover officer introduced the poster's underage status early in the conversation, distinguishing the case from others where entrapment was found.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to admit the deceased's suicide note into probate as a holograph will.

The deceased had a history of heavy alcohol and drug use and wrote the profanity-laced note shortly before taking his own life, attempting to disinherit his spouse.

The court found that suspicious circumstances existed, shifting the burden to the applicant to prove testamentary capacity.

Given the evidence of the deceased's intoxication and the lack of a definitive expert opinion on capacity, the court concluded the applicant failed to meet the burden.

The application to admit the note as a holograph will was dismissed.

The plaintiff subcontractor and defendant general contractor both brought summary judgment motions in a contract dispute arising from a highway bridge construction project.

The plaintiff claimed the unpaid balance of its contract, while the defendant claimed damages for delays caused by the plaintiff's admitted negligence, which resulted in the owner assessing liquidated damages against the defendant.

The court held that the exclusion of liability clause in the plaintiff's estimate did not protect it from damages arising from its own negligence.

The court awarded judgment to both parties and applied legal set-off, resulting in a net judgment in favour of the defendant.

Following a successful motion interpreting a price adjustment clause in a land development agreement, the applicant sought the return of disputed funds held in trust by the respondents' solicitor, along with interest.

The court determined the appropriate interest rates for both the undisputed mortgage amounts paid late by the applicant and the disputed funds held in trust by the respondents.

The court awarded 4% simple interest to the respondents on the late undisputed payments and 4% simple interest to the applicant on the disputed funds held in trust, allowing the respondents to retain the GIC interest earned.

The plaintiff vendors brought a summary judgment motion against the defendant purchasers for damages arising from a failed residential real estate transaction.

The purchasers had refused to close, arguing that four utility easements registered on title were valid requisitions that the vendors failed to remove.

The court found that the easements were standard minor utility easements explicitly excepted under paragraph 10 of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and were clearly shown on the survey attached to the agreement.

The court granted summary judgment to the vendors, finding the purchasers breached the contract, and awarded $430,000 in damages based on the loss from the property's resale.

The vendors appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the purchaser $17,488.27 for breach of warranty in a residential real estate transaction.

The trial judge found the vendors failed to disclose an HVAC rental lien and removed fixtures prior to closing.

The Divisional Court applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review and found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants (vendors) appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent (purchaser) $17,488.27 in damages for a breach of warranty in a residential real estate transaction.

The trial judge found the vendors failed to disclose an HVAC rental contract and removed fixtures prior to closing.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review and found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiffs sued the City of Barrie and several of its employees for misfeasance in public office and intentional interference with economic relations.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants unlawfully interfered with their negotiations to lease a portion of their property to Rogers Communications for a cell phone tower.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the city employees did not engage in deliberate unlawful conduct or intend to harm the plaintiffs.

The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to prove causation or damages, as Rogers had other options and the lease contained an escape clause.

The plaintiff son and defendant father were involved in a family business dispute over well drilling companies.

The son brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to be appointed as a director and to have the corporate assets evaluated, while the father brought a cross-motion seeking to wind up the company.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the voluminous conflicting affidavit evidence and credibility issues required a full trial.

However, the court granted an interim order increasing the land rent paid by the corporation to the father based on an unchallenged appraisal.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for rent arrears and property damage against his former tenants for lack of jurisdiction.

The landlord argued the Small Claims Court had jurisdiction because the tenants had already vacated the property when the claim was brought.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under the Residential Tenancies Act, the Landlord and Tenant Board has exclusive jurisdiction over claims for rent arrears and property damage arising from a residential tenancy, regardless of whether the tenant is still in possession.

Following a trial and supplementary motion where the respondent was substantially successful, the court determined the quantum and scale of costs.

The respondent had made a Rule 49 offer to settle that was more favourable than the judgment obtained.

Applying the principles of Rule 49 and the Boucher factors, the court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer, and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter, fixed at $108,348.46 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following the dismissal of the Estate Trustee's motion to strike a Notice of Objection to Accounts, and the subsequent dismissal of his appeal, the responding beneficiary sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the Estate Trustee acted unreasonably and in his own self-interest, justifying an elevated costs award.

The court ordered the Estate Trustee to personally pay the responding party's costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $47,963.67.

Following a summary judgment motion with divided success, both parties sought costs.

The defendants sought $21,377.86, reflecting a 50% reduction for divided success, while the plaintiff sought $9,489.50, reflecting a 20% reduction.

The court found the plaintiff was the more successful party, having successfully resisted the dismissal of its entire action and established bad faith by the defendants on one issue.

The court awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in costs, all inclusive.

This motion concerned the amendment of a prior judgment under Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to correct a calculation error regarding missed mortgage payments.

The moving party, 2424033 Ontario Ltd., sought to increase the outstanding amount on a second mortgage from $356,200 to $395,200, arguing that the original judgment incorrectly accounted for only 11 missed payments instead of 23.

The responding party, 1605041 Ontario Limited, contended that Rule 59.06(1) was narrow and inapplicable.

The court found that the error was an accidental slip or omission, as the number of missed payments was an undisputed fact at trial, and granted the motion to amend the judgment.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his applications for substantial interference and failure to meet maintenance obligations.

The tenant and his family had moved into the rental unit but left the next day because it was unsafe and unfit for habitation due to ongoing repairs.

The Divisional Court found the Board erred in law by focusing on the tenant's prior knowledge of the unit's condition, ignoring evidence of the severity of the deficiencies, and failing to provide a remedy despite finding the unit unfit for habitation.

The appeal was allowed, and the tenant was awarded the return of his deposit, rent abatement, and out-of-pocket expenses.

The Registrar, Alcohol, Gaming and Racing appealed a decision of the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal which directed the Registrar not to suspend the liquor licence of The Royal Oak.

The Registrar had proposed a 60-day suspension after an intoxicated patron left the premises and was later found dead in the snow, arguing the licensee's obligation not to permit drunkenness included ensuring the patron arrived at a safe place.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable and holding that s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90 does not impose an ongoing obligation on a licensee to ensure a patron's safe arrival at a destination after leaving the premises.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed a grievance concerning the employer's refusal to pay a bilingual bonus to part-time indeterminate employees working temporarily in bilingual positions.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review.

The Court found that the arbitrator's reliance on past practice and the specific wording of the collective agreement regarding the bilingual bonus was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the employer.

The appellant appealed a Tribunal decision regarding the calculation of income for social assistance purposes.

The Tribunal had included a loan incurred for refinancing an existing student loan as income.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision unreasonable.

The Court held that there is implicit discretion under s. 48(1) of O.Reg. 134/98 to exclude a loan where the recipient receives no actual financial benefit or increase in assets.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

The appellants appealed an order finding that a trail across their land was an 'access road' under the Road Access Act and refusing to order it closed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that prior owners had permitted the respondent's use of the road to access his landlocked property.

The court also upheld the application judge's discretionary decision to refuse closure and impose conditions, noting the respondent's long-term use and lack of disruption to the appellants.