Gustavo Fabian Camelino

This endorsement addresses a motion by TruGrp Inc. to set aside a prior vacating order, specifically concerning the interpretation of the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice's role as custodian of lien security and the substitution of a letter of credit with a bank draft.

The court had previously directed that the Accountant and the Bank of Montreal (BMO) be served to provide their positions.

Both the Accountant and BMO confirmed that a bank draft could be accepted under specific conditions outlined in the letter of credit or with a further court order for substitution.

TruGrp's concerns regarding lien security extinguishment were addressed by these positions, leading to the effective withdrawal of the motion on its merits, with only costs remaining in dispute.

TruGrp Inc. moved to set aside an ex parte order vacating its construction liens, arguing that the form of letter of credit used as security was uncertain and inconsistent with the Construction Act and the Accountant's statutory role.

Karmina Holdings Inc. opposed, arguing the motion was meritless and that the letter of credit form was standard.

The court dismissed Karmina's procedural challenges but adjourned the motion to allow the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice and the Bank of Montreal to make submissions on the core dispute regarding the sufficiency and statutory compliance of the letter of credit.

The plaintiff, Drew Casterton, sued the defendant, Gordon MacIsaac, for injuries sustained during a recreational hockey game collision.

The court found MacIsaac liable for intentionally or recklessly causing a blindside hit to Casterton's face, which was deemed outside the bounds of fair play.

The defence of contributory negligence, based on Casterton's choice of a half-visor and alleged cannabis impairment, was rejected.

Casterton was awarded general damages, past income loss, and future income loss, totaling $702,551, but punitive damages were not granted.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their wrongful dismissal action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellants were dismissed for cause in November 2009 and commenced their action in July 2015, approximately six years later.

The appellants argued that they did not know whether a civil proceeding was an appropriate means to seek remedy until related criminal proceedings were resolved.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that "appropriate" under section 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act means legally appropriate, not whether the proceeding will succeed.

The court distinguished Winmill v. Woodstock (Police Services Board) on the basis that the civil and criminal matters were not mirror images of each other in this case.

This case addresses a contractual dispute between a midwifery practice group (AMMA) and three former associate midwives regarding a clause requiring the withdrawal of hospital privileges upon termination of their agreements.

The court examined whether the clause applied to an expired contract, whether privileges were 'held through' the practice group, and if the clause constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade.

The court found the 'termination' clause ambiguous and, applying contra proferentem, ruled it did not apply to an expired contract.

However, it found that privileges were indeed 'held through' the practice group for the purpose of the clause.

The court also determined that the clause was not a restraint of trade under Ontario's formalistic approach, as it did not prohibit competition but merely required the withdrawal of privileges obtained through the association.

The application was dismissed against one respondent (whose contract expired) but allowed against the other two (whose contracts were terminated).

The defendant MacEwen Petroleum Inc. brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' wrongful dismissal claim as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs argued the limitation period should run from the date of their criminal acquittals, not the date of termination, citing exceptions for claims against state agents.

The court found that the plaintiffs' claim was discoverable on the date of termination (November 9, 2009) and did not fall within the narrow exceptions for tolling the limitation period, which are typically reserved for cases involving police misconduct where civil and criminal claims are "mirror images." The motion was granted, and the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed as statute-barred.

The plaintiff tripped at the entrance of a store, sustaining injuries.

She sued the tenant (Swirls) and the landlord (Anastasios) under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

Both defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no genuine issue for trial.

The court found no breach of the duty of care, noting the entrance was properly constructed and a warning sign was present, which the plaintiff admitted seeing.

The plaintiff's expert opinion on warning sign specifics (capitalization, color) was deemed illogical and moot.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim against all defendants and Swirls' cross-claim against Anastasios were dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the defendants, with the plaintiff bearing the majority.

The plaintiff tripped at the entrance of a store, sustaining injuries.

She sued the tenant (Swirls) and the landlord (Anastasios) under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

Both defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no genuine issue for trial.

The court found no breach of the duty of care, noting the entrance was properly constructed and a warning sign was present, which the plaintiff admitted seeing.

The plaintiff's expert opinion on warning sign specifics (capitalization, color) was deemed illogical and moot.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim against all defendants and Swirls' cross-claim against Anastasios were dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the defendants, with the plaintiff bearing the majority.