Heather J. Williams

The plaintiffs, including two lawyers and a union, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from publishing defamatory and harassing posts on a Facebook profile.

The defendant, a former union member, requested an adjournment to retain counsel and transfer the action to Manitoba, which the court denied.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding defamation and harassment, irreparable harm to the professional reputations of the plaintiffs, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The motion was granted with no costs ordered.

The appellant, a not-for-profit corporation owning a mobile home park, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the respondent leaseholder was a 'tenant' under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellant argued that the respondent, as a 'member' of the non-share corporation, fell within the statutory exclusion for a 'shareholder' of a corporation that owns the residential complex.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's textual, contextual, and purposive interpretation that a 'member' of a not-for-profit corporation is not equivalent to a 'shareholder' for the purposes of the exclusion.

The applicant, a judgment creditor owed over $1.5 million by the respondent dentist, brought an application alleging that the respondent and others conspired to fraudulently convey his interest in several dental practices to a third-party corporation.

The applicant sought damages and a declaration that the sale was a conspiracy by unlawful means.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the sale was initiated by an arm's-length purchaser prior to the judgment, the consideration was consistent with standard industry practices, and there was no intent to defeat, hinder, delay, or defraud the applicant.

The defendant brought a motion to set the prejudgment interest rate on non-pecuniary damages awarded to the plaintiffs by a jury at 1.3% instead of the prescribed 5%.

The plaintiffs cross-moved, seeking an 8.46% rate for both non-pecuniary and past pecuniary damages.

The court granted the defendant's motion, reducing the prejudgment interest on non-pecuniary damages to 1.3%, citing low prevailing prejudgment interest rates and the future loss component of the award.

The plaintiffs' cross-motion was dismissed, with the court maintaining the default 0.8% rate for past pecuniary damages, rejecting the plaintiffs' arguments for a higher rate based on their investment returns or the defendant's insurer's returns.

The appellant landlords appealed three decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board finding they terminated a tenancy in bad faith and denying two subsequent review requests.

The landlords failed to attend the initial hearing, claiming confusion over multiple hearing notices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness or error of law.

The Board reasonably proceeded in the landlords' absence, considered their late-filed evidence, and properly denied the review requests due to the landlords' lack of diligence in failing to attend or seek clarification.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's interlocutory decision finding that the employer engaged in prima facie discrimination by denying a creed-based exemption to its COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The Divisional Court raised the issue of prematurity, as the arbitrator had bifurcated the hearing and had not yet determined whether the employer could accommodate the grievor without undue hardship.

The Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, finding no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to justify departing from the general rule against fragmenting ongoing administrative proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action due to the plaintiff's failure to pay ordered security for costs ($45,000) and costs ($8,400).

Despite being given extensions and opportunities, the plaintiff provided no evidence of payment or a plan to pay.

The court, balancing the importance of procedural compliance with access to justice, found no compelling reason to grant further indulgence and dismissed the action under Rule 56.06.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the defendants.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed an action brought by "Social Justice Network" against the defendants, declaring it was commenced by Althea Reyes, a declared vexatious litigant, without leave of the court.

The court found that "Social Justice Network" lacked capacity to sue as it was neither incorporated nor a registered business.

The action was deemed frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, consistent with Reyes's history of using aliases to initiate proceedings.

Full indemnity costs of $10,000 were awarded against Althea Reyes due to her duplicitous and abusive conduct.

The employer and seven employees sought judicial review of two decisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board: a decision certifying the union as the bargaining agent for a unit of carpenters, and a decision dismissing requests for reconsideration.

The applicants argued the decisions were procedurally unfair because they were made without a hearing, and unreasonable because the Board failed to properly consider allegations that the union organizer used misrepresentation to obtain signed membership cards.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Board's specialized procedures permitted it to decide the matter without a hearing, and that its decisions were rational, logical, and tenable based on the evidence and submissions.

The plaintiff was struck on the head by a bocce ball thrown by the defendant Goulet while seated on the outdoor patio of the defendant restaurant (Local).

The plaintiff suffered a mild traumatic brain injury resulting in chronic headaches, fatigue, and cognitive deficits.

The plaintiff settled with the restaurant via a Pierringer Agreement prior to trial.

At trial, Goulet argued the restaurant was contributorily liable for failing to erect a barrier or post warning signs.

The court found Goulet 100% liable, concluding that while the restaurant failed to post a warning sign, this breach did not cause the injury as Goulet knew throwing the ball was dangerous.

The court awarded the plaintiff general damages of $125,000, plus past and future loss of income, future care costs, and out-of-pocket expenses.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) brought a motion to seal a portion of its record of proceedings in an application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of IPC decisions regarding redacted police records.

The IPC sought to file an unredacted 'private' record under seal to prevent the premature disclosure of the very information at issue in the judicial review.

The court granted the sealing order, finding it necessary to prevent a serious risk to the integrity of the judicial review process and noting that disclosure would render the application moot.

The applicant purchased a gas station and convenience store and was subsequently served with a notice of prohibition under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017, suspending tobacco sales for six months.

The notice was based on tobacco sales convictions against the previous owner.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the prohibition was arbitrary and breached procedural fairness since it had no connection to the offences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the legislation mandates an automatic prohibition upon repeat convictions at a specific location, intentionally placing the onus on prospective purchasers to conduct due diligence.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness as the Minister's duty to issue the notice was mandatory.

The Municipality of Mississippi Mills applied to declare Bryant Cougle and Brylin Construction Ltd. vexatious litigants under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court reviewed a history of persistent, unsuccessful, and abusive litigation and communications by the respondents concerning a property zoning dispute dating back to the 1970s.

The court found that the respondents had instituted vexatious proceedings and conducted themselves in a vexatious manner, repeatedly raising issues already decided and making unsubstantiated allegations.

The court declared both respondents vexatious litigants and prohibited them from instituting or continuing any further proceedings without leave of a Superior Court judge.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the Municipality due to the respondents' sanctionable behavior.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent municipality's decision to award a transit operations and maintenance contract to a competing bidder.

The applicant argued that the successful bidder's proposal was non-compliant with the Request for Proposals because it included a subcontractor who was already the contractor for another transit division, allegedly violating a one-contractor-per-division rule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the municipality's interpretation of the RFP—that the restriction applied only to contractors, not subcontractors—was reasonable and that the procurement process was fair and transparent.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by Infinitus (defendant) to stay an action brought by Justmark (plaintiff) due to an arbitration clause.

The court also addressed costs for earlier motions dismissed by consent, where Infinitus Innovations (a related entity) was involved.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs for Infinitus Innovations for the January motions at $35,000 and for Infinitus for the stay motion at $19,500.

The court rejected Justmark's arguments to defer costs to arbitration or for substantial indemnity costs, emphasizing that substantial indemnity is reserved for rare cases of sanctionable behavior.

This decision concerns the costs arising from a dispute between the estate of Laurette Larivière and her son, Conrad Larivière.

The original applications involved claims by the estate regarding funds, accounting, and a life insurance policy, and counter-claims by Conrad for compensation for care and reimbursement of funeral expenses.

The court found that Conrad had substantial success in the underlying applications, particularly in retaining life insurance proceeds and securing reimbursement for funeral expenses, while the estate's claims for accounting and compensation against Conrad were largely rejected.

Consequently, the court awarded Conrad partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, sued the defendant, also an Ontario resident, for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Quebec.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1) to dismiss the action, arguing that Quebec law applied and barred the tort claim.

The court applied the choice of law rule from Tolofson v. Jensen, holding that the law of the place where the tort occurred (Quebec) governed the action.

Under Quebec's Automobile Insurance Act, tort actions for bodily injury from motor vehicle accidents are barred.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The moving party brought an urgent motion for the production of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) under Rule 30.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was referred to in the responding party's affidavits.

The underlying application sought to extinguish a right of first refusal held by the moving party.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the APS was not incorporated by reference into the affidavits.

Furthermore, the court exercised its discretion to deny production, concluding the APS was not relevant to the core issue of the application and its disclosure could prejudice the responding party due to commercial sensitivity.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of M.D. Faieta J. dated September 12, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $2,167.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 to the responding party.