H.M. Pierce

The plaintiffs, an auto recycling business and its owner, sued the lead investigator and the Thunder Bay Police Services Board for negligent police investigation after being acquitted of multiple counts of possession of stolen property.

The court found the police investigation was negligent because the officers failed to familiarize themselves with auto recycling industry practices, misunderstood the relevant law, ignored and failed to document innocent explanations, and failed to secure seized property.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $1,581,116.62 in damages, including compensation for lost business income, legal fees, property damage, and non-pecuniary losses for reputational harm and emotional distress.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent’s statement of claim under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and an application under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act seeking a declaration that the respondent was a vexatious litigant.

The respondent had commenced a civil action asserting that he was a separate legal entity from the person involved in ongoing family proceedings and sought declarations granting him superior title and possession of his children.

The court held that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, duplicated issues already before the family court, and constituted an abuse of process.

After reviewing the respondent’s extensive litigation history and repeated disregard of court orders, the court found that he persistently commenced meritless proceedings and conducted litigation in a vexatious manner.

The action was struck and the respondent was declared a vexatious litigant prohibited from commencing further proceedings without leave of the court.

The parties separated in 2010 and agreed to shared custody of their two children.

At trial, the mother sought spousal support, retroactive child support, and retroactive section 7 expenses, while the father sought ongoing child support and section 7 expense contributions.

The court dismissed the mother's claims for spousal support, finding she was financially self-sufficient and had advanced her career during the marriage.

Claims for retroactive child support and section 7 expenses were also dismissed as the father had honoured a prior agreement and contributed appropriately.

Ongoing child support was calculated using a set-off approach, resulting in the father paying $444 per month, with extraordinary section 7 expenses split proportionate to income.

The defendant, Viridian Inc., brought a motion for a declaration of forum non conveniens, seeking to transfer the plaintiff insurer's action to Manitoba or stay the proceedings.

The underlying dispute involved insurance coverage for historic environmental remediation at Manitoba mine sites.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a related action involving multiple insurers was already proceeding in Toronto.

Transferring this single action to Manitoba would risk a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent verdicts, making Ontario the more appropriate forum.

The young person, an aboriginal youth, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after fatally stabbing his cousin during an altercation.

The court considered the chaotic social conditions of his remote community, his history of solvent abuse, and Gladue factors.

The court declined to grant enhanced credit for pre-trial custody.

The young person was sentenced to two years, comprising six months of pre-trial custody credit, three months in secure custody, and 15 months of conditional supervision in the community with conditions to attend school and address substance abuse and anger issues.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim, arguing it was statute-barred under s. 97(2) of the Employment Standards Act because the plaintiff had previously filed an ESA complaint.

The plaintiff, who was terminated for alleged theft of prescriptions, also pleaded intentional torts including negligent misrepresentation and conspiracy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the ESA adjudication scheme was not intended to bar independent claims for intentional torts, and the civil action should proceed to trial where the trial judge can determine if the severance claim is barred alongside the independent causes of action.

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 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 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 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 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 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.