Helen A. Rady

The deceased died unexpectedly, leaving a valid 2013 paper will and an unsigned, unwitnessed 2024 draft will that existed only in electronic form on his computer.

The moving party sought a determination of whether the 2024 electronic document could be validated as a will under s. 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA).

The court held that the combined effect of s. 21.1(2) of the SLRA and s. 31(1) of the Electronic Commerce Act (ECA) prevents the validation of a testamentary document that exists only in electronic form, as wills are expressly exempted from the ECA's functional equivalency rules.

In the alternative, the court found that the electronic document did not represent a fixed and final expression of the deceased's testamentary intentions, as it was never printed or signed despite the deceased having the opportunity to do so.

The application to validate the electronic will was dismissed.

Two Simplified Rules lawsuits arose from a failed commercial real estate transaction.

The vendor refused to close, alleging the transaction was an illegal contract because the purchaser made an additional $25,000 cash payment to the vendor's principal to offset capital gains.

The court found the vendor's principal orchestrated the cash payment to extract a higher price and used the illegality argument as a pretext to avoid closing.

The court held the transaction was not illegal and the purchaser was ready, willing, and able to close.

The plaintiffs were awarded damages for the lost real estate commission and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in anticipation of closing.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder alongside a co-accused, brought a pre-trial motion seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from the swearing of the information to the anticipated end of trial was 1156 days.

The court deducted periods of defence delay, including time taken to retain counsel and unavailability for scheduled dates, as well as exceptional circumstances arising from the co-accused's counsel's conflict of interest and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The net delay fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan, and the court found the Crown took reasonable steps to move the joint prosecution forward.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The applicants sought judgment to enforce the terms of a settlement reached at a judicial pre-trial regarding a disputed strip of land used as a farm access road.

The dispute centered on the precise location of a fence to be constructed as part of the settlement.

The court found that a binding settlement had been reached, memorialized in a written document, and that the parties' subsequent conduct confirmed their agreement.

The court rejected the respondents' arguments of misunderstanding or mistake, holding that there was no evidence of a lack of authority or misapprehension by counsel.

The court granted the motion, enforcing the settlement.

The plaintiff, Joel Pilotte, sought production of Father Roy’s personnel file from the non-party Archdiocese of St.-Boniface, arguing its relevance to allegations of sexual assault and institutional knowledge of Roy’s history.

The court found the documents relevant to a material issue and ordered their production, emphasizing the need for a fair trial and the balancing of interests under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondents failed to close a residential real estate transaction, and the appellants (vendors) sued for breach of contract.

At trial, the judge awarded damages based on an appraiser's assessment of fair market value rather than the actual resale price, finding the appellants failed to mitigate their damages.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by bypassing the resale price as the presumptive fair market value and by relying on expert evidence that exceeded the appraiser's qualifications regarding marketing practices.

The Court awarded damages based on the difference between the original contract price and the resale price, plus certain expenses and legal fees.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he did not suffer a 'catastrophic impairment' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant argued the tribunal applied the wrong legal test and violated procedural fairness in assessing his functional impairments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the tribunal applied the correct legal standards and the appellant's arguments were impermissible attempts to re-weigh factual evidence on an appeal limited to questions of law.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for debt collection, which the defendants resisted, arguing genuine issues for trial, partial summary judgment not disposing of litigation, and limitation issues.

The court dismissed the motion, finding numerous triable issues, including the quantum owed, the responsible corporate entity, Charles James Hevey's personal liability, and the validity of acknowledgments.

The court also noted the complexity of the corporate structures, the casual financial dealings between family members, and the presence of credibility issues, concluding that the case was not suitable for summary judgment or the use of expanded powers under Rule 20.04(2.1), and that partial summary judgment would not satisfy the criteria for efficiency or consistency given the ongoing third-party claims.

This certified class action concerns economic losses allegedly sustained by corn growers due to the premature commercialization of genetically modified corn seed (Agrisure/Viptera/Duracade) by the defendants, Syngenta Canada Inc. and Syngenta AG.

The plaintiff alleges that Syngenta released the product into the North American market without obtaining import approval from China, leading to rejected shipments, a glut in domestic supply, and depressed corn prices.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty of care to the class.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature due to the absence of documentary and oral discovery, and concluding that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the existence of a duty of care, particularly concerning industry warnings to Syngenta and the interconnectedness of the corn market.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action on behalf of independent distributors who contracted with the defendants to deliver fresh bread products.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants breached their contracts and the Arthur Wishart Act by participating in and concealing an illegal price-fixing conspiracy.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action, there was an identifiable class, the claims raised common issues, a class action was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was suitable.

The motion for certification was granted.

The applicants sought rectification of a 2012 trust resolution to accurately reflect the allocation of capital gains to beneficiaries, enabling them to utilize their Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption.

The Canada Revenue Agency had reassessed the Trust, taxing the income within the Trust due to the resolution's lack of specificity regarding beneficiary allocations, leading to double taxation.

The court found that the applicants proved a prior agreement to allocate at least $375,000 of taxable capital gains to each of Heidi, Gregory, and Philip, and that the resolution failed to accurately record this.

The application for rectification was granted.

The accused, having been convicted of sexual offences and making child pornography, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from the laying of charges to the conclusion of evidence was approximately 59 months.

The court deducted periods of defence delay, including time taken to schedule a preliminary hearing and trial due to defence counsel's unavailability, as well as discrete exceptional delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and Crown illness.

Although the net delay of 31.4 months slightly exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling, the court dismissed the application, finding that the defence had explicitly waived delay and demonstrated a marked indifference to delay throughout the proceedings.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment against the defendant for damages arising from an aborted agreement of purchase and sale for a new-build residential property.

The defendant defaulted on the closing date due to an inability to secure mortgage financing.

The plaintiff subsequently relisted the property at a lower price and incurred carrying costs.

The defendant argued misrepresentation regarding assignment and improper refusal to extend the closing date.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting that the agreement of purchase and sale had no financing condition, required vendor consent for assignment (which was not obtained), and explicitly stated that time was of the essence.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for the loss in sale price and incurred expenses.

The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a finding that the defendant was liable for damages arising from Souphin Inlakhana’s 43-day imprisonment after a judicial decision made her eligible for accelerated parole review (APR).

The plaintiffs alleged false imprisonment, negligence, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches (ss. 7, 9, 11(i), 12).

The defendant sought dismissal of the motion.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding no Charter violation or negligence in the administrative delay of release, as the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and Parole Board of Canada (PBC) followed statutorily mandated processes within established timeframes, despite some delays.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendant on this specific claim.

The defendants, Municipality of North Middlesex and Vic Stellingwerff, brought a motion to stay the action as an abuse of process, alleging the plaintiffs failed to disclose a Pierringer agreement.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to amend their Statement of Claim to explicitly limit their claim against the non-settling defendants to several liability.

The court dismissed the motion to stay, finding that the existence of the Pierringer agreement was disclosed promptly and did not significantly alter the litigation landscape.

The court granted the cross-motion to amend the Statement of Claim.

The accused, charged with dangerous driving causing death after his commercial truck collided with a car, brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings.

He alleged the Crown breached his section 7 rights by releasing the truck to its owner, thereby losing or destroying material evidence regarding the truck's weight and braking capacity.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the accused failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the evidence was lost or destroyed, noting the defence had multiple opportunities to inspect the vehicle and had in fact obtained an expert report.

The moving party mother brought a motion for an interim order permitting her to relocate with the parties' six-year-old child to another city for employment reasons.

The responding party father opposed the move and sought a shared parenting arrangement.

The court found that it was premature to permit relocation on an interim basis given the conflicting evidence and the significant disruption it would cause to the child's status quo and the father's parenting time.

The court dismissed the relocation motion, adjourning the issue to trial, and ordered a shared-care parenting schedule on a four-day rotation.

The plaintiff, an infant who allegedly sustained a brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, brought a motion to compel her mother (the defendant driver) to be present during all of her medical appointments and assessments.

The plaintiff also sought leave under Rule 48.04(1) to bring the motion after the trial record had been passed.

The court granted leave, emphasizing the interests of justice for an infant plaintiff.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's request for the mother to be present in the examination room, finding the defence's proposal—that the mother could accompany the plaintiff and be interviewed separately, while another chaperone could be in the room—struck a reasonable balance.

The plaintiff sought certification of a national class proceeding on behalf of Canadian corn growers alleging negligent premature commercialization of genetically modified corn seed containing the MIR-162 trait before Chinese import approval was obtained.

The court held that the action satisfied the cause of action, common issues, preferability, and representative plaintiff requirements, and that there was some basis in fact for loss, causation, and a proposed aggregate damages methodology despite competing expert evidence.

The court rejected arguments that the class was unsupported for lack of proof of loss, that limitations issues defeated certification, and that individualized damages questions barred certification.

Certification was granted, subject to refinement of the class definition and amendment of one proposed common issue.

The applicant, charged with possession of fentanyl and hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence seized during a search of her residence and a subsequent strip search.

She argued the search warrant was based on inadequate information from a confidential informant.

The court found the warrant was validly issued based on the totality of the information, including surveillance and database checks.

The court also found reasonable and probable grounds existed for the arrest and strip search, and concluded that even if a Charter breach occurred, the evidence should not be excluded under the Grant framework.