Henry Michael Gilmour Rosenberg

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering it to repay approximately $2.3 million in loans to the deceased's estate.

On appeal, the appellant argued for the first time that the action was statute-barred under s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act, and that the trial judge erred in finding the limitation period was restarted by its acknowledgment of the debt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, refusing to entertain the new Trustee Act argument and finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's correspondence and partial payments restarted the limitation period.

The plaintiff moved to set aside a registrar’s dismissal of his multi-party action for delay under Rule 37.14.

Applying the contextual approach and the Reid factors, the court held that the plaintiff had shown sufficient inadvertence, ongoing intention to pursue the claim, and absence of significant prejudice to the defendants, despite delay and the expiry of a limitation period.

The court also found uncontradicted evidence that the status notice may not have been received and emphasized the preference for deciding civil cases on their merits rather than procedural defaults.

The dismissal was set aside, directions were given for any summary judgment motion and for setting the matter down for trial, and no costs were ordered.

The plaintiffs, standardbred horse breeders and related entities, moved for an imposed discovery plan and broad documentary production in a $60 million action arising from the termination of the Slots at Racetracks Program.

The court held that the defendants had not filed cogent evidence under Rule 29.2.03 to justify restricting otherwise relevant productions on proportionality grounds.

The court ordered both defendants to run the plaintiffs’ proposed search terms for affidavit-of-documents purposes, but limited most searches to January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2012, while extending searches involving SARP or HIP terminology back to January 1, 1998.

Ontario’s motion to file further affidavit material was dismissed, and the plaintiffs’ request for custodian details was dismissed without prejudice.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the summary conviction appeal court, which had dismissed his appeal from a conviction.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that no question of law of general importance was raised and that the appellant failed to demonstrate any clear legal error in the lower court's reasons.

Following a successful trial establishing repayment obligations under promissory notes, the plaintiffs sought costs on a full indemnity basis based on a contractual costs clause and an unaccepted Rule 49 offer to settle.

The defendant argued that the claim for costs was excessive and unsupported by documentation and that the action was straightforward.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Considering the plaintiffs’ success, the favourable Rule 49 offer, and the defendant’s litigation conduct, the court concluded that substantial indemnity costs were justified.

However, applying proportionality and reasonableness, the court reduced the amount claimed and fixed costs at a lower figure.

The applicant tenant, who operated a restaurant, was evicted by the respondent landlord for alleged rental arrears.

The parties had never signed a formal lease and disputed the terms of the tenancy and the exact amount owed.

The court granted the tenant temporary relief from forfeiture, conditional upon the payment of admitted base rent arrears, outstanding realty taxes, and water bills, to allow the parties 60 days to negotiate the terms of the tenancy.

The appellant challenged a trial judgment arising from an acrimonious neighbour dispute, arguing that the trial judge improperly inferred his responsibility for a threatening coyote carcass incident without direct evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the inference was firmly grounded in the factual record, including the ongoing hostility, the prior confrontation, the absence of any other apparent motive, and evidence placing the appellant in position to observe the respondents' reaction.

Applying the deferential palpable and overriding error standard, the court declined to interfere with the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents' trial success on their counterclaim remained undisturbed.

Following a status hearing in a civil action, the court addressed costs after the plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear and had not responded to repeated correspondence from defence counsel.

The court noted that the plaintiff’s lawyer provided no explanation for the non‑appearance or lack of communication and that such conduct demonstrated disrespect toward both opposing counsel and the court.

While the court had authority under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the claim, it declined to do so but warned that the plaintiff’s claim was placed in jeopardy.

Taking into account the defendant’s preparation, travel time, and the possibility that some preparation could be reused if the hearing were renewed, the court reduced the requested amount.

Costs of $4,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST were awarded to the defendant.

At a Rule 48.14 status hearing in a civil action, the defendant appeared but no one appeared for the plaintiff.

The record showed repeated requests by the defendant for an amended statement of claim and particulars following an earlier judicial decision, but the plaintiff’s counsel failed to provide them in a timely manner.

The court found that the delay in advancing the action was largely attributable to the plaintiff’s counsel.

Although the court acknowledged it had authority to dismiss the action for delay, it declined to do so in order to avoid punishing the plaintiff for counsel’s conduct.

Instead, the court ordered the plaintiff’s counsel to provide a compliant amended pleading, particulars, and to engage in scheduling discussions, and directed that a further hearing address costs arising from the delay.

The General Manager of OHIP alleged that the applicant physician misrepresented the nature of services by billing fee code K070 multiple times for the same patient when modifying home care medical orders.

The applicant appealed to the Physician Payment Review Board, arguing his billing practice was consistent with the Schedule of Benefits.

The Board found that the wording of fee code K070 does not expressly limit its use to the initial home care application.

The Board concluded that the applicant's practice of billing K070 when submitting a fresh home care services request form to modify medical orders was a reasonable interpretation and did not constitute misrepresentation under s. 18(2) of the Health Insurance Act.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to strike the plaintiff's claims in strict liability, negligence, and nuisance arising from environmental contamination.

The strict liability claim was struck on consent.

The court held that the plaintiff's claims for damages other than property devaluation were statute-barred because the limitation period resumed when the class action abandoned those claims in 2002.

However, the claim for property devaluation was not statute-barred as the limitation period remained suspended until the plaintiff was excluded from the class in 2009.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the remaining claims.

In a Commercial List dispute involving the valuation of shares in a pharmacy business and claims regarding termination pay, the parties brought a refusals and production motion relating to documentary disclosure.

During the hearing, the court concluded that the issues required more extensive argument than appropriate for a brief Commercial List refusals motion.

The judge provided guidance regarding production obligations concerning alleged diversion of business and the use of company funds benefiting related entities.

However, the court determined that detailed refusals disputes should be heard by a Master, whose jurisdiction includes such matters.

The motion was therefore referred to a Master for determination, with further case management to follow once the production issues are resolved.

The applicant sought declarations regarding the interpretation and enforcement of settlement Minutes and a third mortgage registered following a construction lien dispute in a residential townhouse development.

The respondent refused to provide partial mortgage discharges required to permit closings of individual unit sales, arguing the settlement lacked consideration, that defaults under a prior mortgage rendered its mortgage in default, and that the applicant breached standard charge terms.

The court rejected these defences, holding that valid consideration existed and that the mortgage and Minutes clearly required the respondent to provide partial discharges to facilitate sales.

The court granted declarations confirming the applicant’s right to register partial discharges and enjoined the respondent from withholding authorization for those discharges.

A request for a reference to determine damages was dismissed as premature.

The accused brought a pre‑trial motion seeking particulars requiring the Crown to specify the alleged misrepresentations, fraudulent conduct, and false accounting entries underlying charges relating to financial reporting of a public corporation.

The motion relied on s. 587 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the indictment lacked sufficient detail for the preparation of a defence.

The court reviewed the extensive investigations, disclosure, and related regulatory proceedings already known to the accused and concluded that they were aware of the case they had to meet.

The court held that the areas of dispute were sufficiently delineated and that further particulars were unnecessary for trial fairness or evidentiary rulings.

The application for particulars was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice granting summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.