Howard J. Wolch

The plaintiff, A.C., sought leave under section 17(2) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act to continue a civil action for malicious prosecution against the Attorney General of Ontario.

This claim arose after criminal charges against A.C. for sexual misconduct, which had resulted in a mistrial, were subsequently withdrawn by the Crown due to no reasonable prospect of conviction.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that A.C. failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of success, specifically by not providing sufficient evidence of malice on the part of the Crown.

The court emphasized that mere inconsistencies in evidence, lack of forensic evidence, or late disclosure (without proof of deliberate intent to subvert justice) do not meet the high threshold for proving malice required for malicious prosecution claims against the Attorney General.

This endorsement addresses costs following a decision on two motions in a family law dispute.

The Applicant sought financial disclosure, interim child and spousal support, and litigation expenses under Rule 24(18) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the Applicant to be the more successful party, despite not achieving all requested relief and exhibiting some unreasonable behaviour (e.g., extraordinary support requests, misuse of credit card for legal fees).

The Respondent's failure to provide complete financial disclosure, delay in stating his support position, and unilateral termination of a credit card arrangement (potentially contempt of court) were deemed unreasonable.

The court awarded the Applicant $40,000 in all-inclusive costs, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness, and clarified that prior payments made by the Respondent towards the Applicant's legal and expert fees via credit card should be credited against the Rule 24(18) order, not the costs award.

The applicants sought to set aside a motion judge's decision that dismissed their motion to extend time to appeal an earlier order.

The motion judge had found prompt intention but serious prejudice to respondents due to the applicant being judgment-proof with over $1,000,000 in outstanding costs, and a lack of merit to the proposed appeal, deeming it part of an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal panel, reviewing under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision, finding no error in the application of the legal test for extension of time and noting the appeal was patently unmeritorious.

The panel dismissed the motion and awarded costs to the respondents.

The landlord applied for a writ of possession and to terminate a commercial lease, while the tenant applied for a declaration that the termination was invalid.

The dispute centered on the allocation of realty taxes and occupancy costs.

The court found that while the landlord's method of allocating taxes by square footage was a reasonable exercise of its contractual discretion, it could not charge the tenant for taxes related to the parking garage.

Furthermore, the landlord was not entitled to terminate the lease because it had previously agreed to defer tax discussions and had failed to provide the required annual estimates and reconciliations for occupancy costs.

The court also held that, in the alternative, the tenant would be entitled to relief from forfeiture.

The applicant sought to prove the deceased's 2020 Will and inter vivos transfers, while the respondent filed a Notice of Objection alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence regarding both the 2016 and 2020 Wills, as well as the transfers.

The court reviewed the evidence, applying the minimal evidentiary threshold test for suspicious circumstances.

The court found that the respondent failed to meet this threshold for any of her grounds, and the applicant successfully addressed any potential concerns.

The respondent's Notice of Objection was struck.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 59.06 to vary an interlocutory injunction that prohibited him from competing with or soliciting customers of the responding party.

The court found that the responding party had failed to pursue their case with reasonable dispatch, as pleadings were not yet closed 15 months after the injunction was granted.

Furthermore, the contractual non-competition and non-solicitation periods in the Professional Services Agreement had already expired.

The court granted the motion in part, terminating the non-competition and non-solicitation obligations against the moving party personally.

The Applicant and Respondent both brought motions concerning disclosure, amending pleadings, questioning, child support, spousal support, and interim disbursements.

The court granted mutual orders for disclosure and amending pleadings, with the Respondent advancing funds for the Applicant's disclosure costs.

Leave was granted for both parties to question each other, with time limits.

The court ordered the Respondent to pay interim child support of $1,296 per month retroactive to January 1, 2018, and interim spousal support of $2,185 per month retroactive to January 1, 2018.

The Respondent was also ordered to pay $20,000 in interim disbursements to the Applicant.

The applicants sought an extension of time to appeal a Superior Court decision dismissing their application as an abuse of process.

The application had sought relief regarding an alleged breach of a joint venture agreement concerning the Abu Sennan oil reserve.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Chambers judge's refusal to grant the extension, finding no merit in the proposed appeal.

The court determined that the applicants were bound by the result of a prior British Columbia action on the same issue and that the application constituted an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, a distributor, sued the defendant, a manufacturer of adult sex toys, for breach of three purported exclusive distribution agreements.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding that the parties were merely negotiating and had never reached a binding consensus ad idem on the essential terms.

The defendant counterclaimed for defamation and other torts based on a complaint the plaintiff's principal sent to Health Canada alleging safety defects in the defendant's products.

The court granted the counterclaim for defamation and injurious falsehood, finding the statements were false, defamatory, and made with the intent to harm the defendant's reputation and business.

The defendant was awarded $50,000 in general damages.

The defendant brought a motion seeking further and better disclosure from the plaintiff, directions regarding a prior production order, and leave to amend its defence and counterclaim to include a defamation claim against the plaintiff and an additional party.

The plaintiff brought a competing motion seeking to strike the defence for non-compliance with a previous order, additional production including distribution agreements and accounting authorizations, and summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim.

The court ordered additional disclosure from the plaintiff subject to confidentiality but declined to require certain disproportionate productions, including telephone and email purchase requests.

Requests by the plaintiff for distribution agreements and direct communication with the defendant’s accountants were dismissed as unnecessary or premature.

Leave to amend the defence and counterclaim was granted and the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion was dismissed without prejudice pending completion of disclosure and discoveries.

The defendant manufacturer brought a motion seeking relief from an earlier consent arrangement requiring it to maintain an exclusive distribution agreement with the plaintiff distributor pending further court order.

The court interpreted the earlier arrangement as permitting the matter to be brought back before the court and considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to an interlocutory injunction to maintain the agreement until trial.

Applying the test from R.J.R. MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General), the court found that although there were triable issues regarding the duration and alleged breaches of the agreement, the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience did not favour injunctive relief.

The court emphasized that enforcing exclusive distribution agreements through injunctions can require ongoing judicial supervision of deteriorating commercial relationships.

The request for an interlocutory injunction was refused, though the agreement was temporarily maintained for 60 days to allow the distributor to transition its business.