Helen M. Pierce

The plaintiff brought an action claiming $300,000 for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty arising from a failed restaurant franchise.

The defendants did not appear at trial.

The court found that the individual defendant did not owe a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff's brother in his capacity as a shareholder of the corporate defendant.

While the court provisionally assessed damages for breach of contract against the corporate defendant at $121,948.36, it ultimately dismissed the claim as statute-barred.

The cause of action arose in 1997, and the statement of claim was not issued until 2005, well beyond the applicable six-year limitation period under the former Limitations Act.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of home invasion sexual assault dating back to 1985-1987.

After being discharged at a preliminary inquiry in 1989, the police kept the investigation open pending advancements in DNA technology.

A preferred indictment was eventually obtained in 2010 after DNA linked the accused to the crimes.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed by the 25-year delay.

The court found that while much of the delay was inherent time required for DNA science to evolve, there were 32 months of unreasonable delay attributable to the Crown and police.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought an action against their uncle, the sole executor and trustee of their late father's estate, for breach of fiduciary duty.

The defendant failed to administer the estate, squandered assets, and repeatedly ignored court orders to pass accounts, resulting in multiple contempt findings and a brief imprisonment.

After the defendant was noted in default, the plaintiffs brought a motion for judgment.

The court found the defendant's conduct to be an egregious breach of fiduciary duty and awarded damages for the value of the estate, reimbursement of legal fees, and $100,000 in punitive damages, along with substantial indemnity costs.

The mother brought a motion for various interim orders in a family law proceeding following the parties' separation.

The court granted the mother interim custody of the children, noting the high conflict and the father's guilty plea to assaulting the mother.

The court also granted a restraining order against the father, ordered him to maintain health benefits for the mother, and awarded interim child and spousal support.

The mother's request for an interlocutory injunction for exclusive possession of a vehicle was dismissed as her pleadings lacked the required undertaking as to damages and she failed to meet the RJR-MacDonald test.

Following two unsuccessful defence motions seeking to adjourn a scheduled construction lien trial and introduce a late expert report, the court addressed costs consequences.

The court found that the motions were tactical attempts to delay the proceedings and manipulate the Rules of Civil Procedure after a trial date had already been scheduled.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the defendants for both motions as a sanction for litigation conduct intended to frustrate the plaintiff’s claim and waste court resources.

The court reduced certain hourly rates claimed but fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis for each motion.

The defendants were ordered to pay fixed costs totaling $6,309.12 for the June motion and $5,761.02 for the August motion.

The accused was charged with communicating with a person under 18 for the purpose of facilitating a sexual assault after a 15-year-old complainant received solicitations via Kijiji.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including IP address logs, computer key logger data, and cell phone records linking the offending email address and phone number to the accused.

The court found that the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence, including the accused's access to the specific computers and his connection to the cell phone used, proved his identity as the sender beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty.

The plaintiff contractor brought an action under the Construction Lien Act against the defendant owners for unpaid invoices relating to masonry work on a remote island cottage.

The defendants argued the plaintiff over-billed, delayed the project, and performed deficient work.

The court found the parties had a time and materials contract, the plaintiff's billings were largely accurate, and the defendants' complaints about deficiencies were unfounded or related to work outside the plaintiff's scope.

The court awarded the plaintiff $117,554.43, including interest and late charges, and declared a lien on the property.

The respondent Corporation sought costs following an application for judicial review of a labour arbitration award.

The court found the amount sought excessive, noting that the usual quantum for such applications is around $5,000.

The court declined to award higher costs based on the Corporation's choice to use out-of-province counsel and fixed costs at $5,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendant and third party sought an order bifurcating the trial of the main action and the third party claim arising from a construction tender dispute relating to baggage handling infrastructure at an airport.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the rules presume the main action and third party claim will be tried together and that the factual issues overlap.

The court held that the moving parties had not sought leave to bring the motion after the action had been set down for trial, which alone justified dismissal.

The court further found that the claims shared common factual underpinnings concerning the tendering process and that bifurcation would create inefficiencies and risk inconsistent findings.

The motion to try the third party claim separately was dismissed.

The Aboriginal offender pleaded guilty to break and enter and commit robbery following a home invasion where a co-accused stabbed and killed an individual.

The Crown sought a penitentiary term of 5 to 7 years, while the defence sought a reformatory sentence with 1.5:1 enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court analyzed the Truth in Sentencing Act amendments to s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code, concluding that enhanced credit requires exceptional circumstances beyond standard remand conditions.

The court denied the enhanced credit, applying a 1:1 ratio for 525 days of pre-sentence custody.

Applying Gladue principles and noting the offender's youth, remorse, and rehabilitative prospects, the court imposed a sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award ordering compensatory and punitive damages against it for organizing illegal strikes.

The union argued the collective agreement limited the arbitrator to declaratory relief for employer grievances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably interpreted the collective agreement and the Canada Labour Code in concluding he had broad remedial authority to award damages.

The accused faced multiple historical sexual assault charges and brought a motion seeking a stay of proceedings under ss. 7 and 11(b) of the Charter based on delay.

The parties sought directions on whether the stay application should be argued before trial or during the jury trial.

The court held that, absent unusual circumstances, motions for a stay based on unreasonable delay should generally be heard prior to trial.

Because the defence relied on an inference of prejudice and there was an adequate evidentiary record, the court directed that the Charter motion be argued in advance of trial.

The moving party brought a motion to vary an order requiring payment of $800 per month in spousal support to the former spouse, alleging an inability to pay due to reduced business income and financial shortfall.

The responding party disputed the alleged decline in income and pointed to employment income, corporate income, and rental income.

The court held that the moving party failed to establish a material change in circumstances since the original order.

Evidence showed the moving party’s income had actually increased due to teaching income and anticipated rental income.

The court emphasized that a motion to vary cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal and dismissed the motion.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondent leave to amend her statement of claim to add a derivative claim against an insurer on behalf of a corporation.

The respondent sought to recover her investment losses under a fidelity bond issued to the corporation, alleging the corporation's principal committed fraudulent acts.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the principal was the controlling mind of the corporation and could not defraud his own corporation.

As the proposed derivative claim was bound to fail, the respondent was not a proper complainant under the Business Corporations Act.

The plaintiff commenced a construction lien action against the defendants for unpaid cottage renovations.

The defendants counterclaimed for defective work, but later agreed to discontinue the counterclaim without costs after a fire damaged the property, intending to pursue a separate subrogation claim.

The defendants subsequently sought leave under s. 67.2 of the Construction Lien Act to bring a motion to adjourn the upcoming trial and set aside their notice of discontinuance, arguing the issues should be consolidated.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the adjournment was not 'necessary' under the Act, would delay the summary procedure, and would prejudice the plaintiff who had relied on the agreement to discontinue.

The appellants appealed two decisions of the Social Benefits Tribunal that upheld an overpayment assessment of $60,231.86 by the Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The appellants argued the Tribunal made factual and procedural errors, failed to consider certain arguments, and demonstrated bias.

The Divisional Court found no errors of law, palpable or overriding errors of fact, or evidence of bias in the Tribunal's merits decision.

The Court also dismissed the appeal of the human rights decision, finding no error in the Tribunal's treatment of the appellant's inheritance, corporate veil, or business expenses.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The plaintiff, acting personally and as assignee of his brother's corporation, sued the defendants for damages arising from a failed fast-food franchise investment.

The plaintiff alleged that the individual defendant, acting through his holding company, maliciously interfered with the plaintiff's business by inducing subtenants to breach their contracts, unreasonably withdrawing consent to subleases, and secretly terminating the head lease for the restaurant premises.

The court found the defendants liable for breach of contract and inducing breach of contract, piercing the corporate veil to hold the individual defendant personally liable due to his malicious and tortious conduct.

The plaintiff was awarded $144,228.69 in damages, including $100,000 in at-large damages for inducing breach of contract.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission revoking its liquor licence.

The Board found the appellant permitted unlawful gambling and the sale, distribution, or consumption of controlled drugs on its premises.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The Court held that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant had constructive knowledge of the drug activity and that the penalty of revocation was reasonable.

The appellant appealed an order setting aside a previous consent judgment that had dismissed the respondent's action for lack of jurisdiction.

The motions judge had set aside the consent order based on a subsequent change in jurisprudence regarding the court's jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that a change in the law does not constitute 'facts arising or discovered after' an order is made under Rule 59.06(2)(a).

The court also found that the respondent's application to re-open the action was barred by cause of action estoppel.

The defendant hotel moved for an order for security for costs against the plaintiff, who resided outside Ontario.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant delayed in bringing the motion and that he was impecunious, meaning an order would stifle a meritorious claim.

The court found the delay was explained and not fatal.

However, the court determined the plaintiff was impecunious and his negligence claim against the hotel for failing to provide appropriate security was not plainly devoid of merit.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed.