Howard Yegendorf

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed a civil action brought by Stephen Massey, purportedly also on behalf of his two daughters (J.M. and C.M.), against 31 defendants including the Children's Aid Society, the Office of the Children's Lawyer, various lawyers, and his ex-wife.

The claim, a collateral attack on prior family law proceedings that concluded in 2016, alleged child abuse and professional misconduct.

The court dismissed the action against Mr. Massey with prejudice due to his failure to attend case conferences, non-compliance with court orders, and the action being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, largely barred by the limitation period.

The claim on behalf of J.M. and C.M. was dismissed without prejudice, acknowledging potential discoverability issues and the uncertainty of their authorization.

The court imposed a leave requirement for Mr. Massey to initiate future proceedings against these defendants and awarded costs against him.

The plaintiffs in a personal injury action sought a redaction order to conceal the amount of a settlement and advance payments, as well as expert reports on damages, from the public record.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a serious risk to important public interests such as settlement privilege, confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements, or the privacy of litigants, as required by the Sierra Club test.

The extensive media attention was not considered a measure of public interest.

This endorsement addresses the importance of the open court principle in the context of motions or applications for approval of settlements reached by, or on behalf of, minors or persons under a disability.

The plaintiffs sought an order dispensing with service of relevant materials on the opposing party, citing solicitor-client and litigation-settlement privilege.

The court reviewed the legal framework for dispensing with service and sealing orders, emphasizing the high bar set by the open court principle and the Sierra Club criteria.

The court found the evidence insufficient to justify dispensing with service, concluding that claims of privilege alone are generally not enough to override the public interest in transparency and the court's parens patriae jurisdiction in such matters.

The plaintiffs' request to dispense with service was dismissed, and they were ordered to serve the defendants with the complete motion record.

The Third Party, Miguel Villeneuve, brought a motion for summary judgment to strike third-party claims by the Laferrière defendants and Calypso Theme Waterpark.

The claims alleged Villeneuve caused the plaintiff's injuries, which directly contradicted findings from a prior criminal conviction of the Laferrière defendants for assaulting the plaintiff.

The court found that these third-party claims constituted a collateral attack on the criminal court's findings and were an abuse of process.

The motion was granted, and the third-party claims were struck.

Following an application concerning enforcement of a condominium declaration restricting units to single family residence use, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicants had been largely successful on the underlying application, obtaining findings that the condominium corporation was obligated to enforce its declaration and that certain grandfathering provisions in a proposed rule were unreasonable.

The court held that litigation was necessary to compel compliance with the declaration and that the applicants achieved the substantive relief sought.

Considering the factors under rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including settlement offers and litigation conduct, the court awarded costs jointly and severally against the corporation and a director who had breached his statutory duties.

The applicants, unit owners at Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 111, sought a declaration that a proposed rule defining 'single family residence' and its grandfathering provisions were unreasonable and inconsistent with the condominium's declaration.

They also sought an oppression remedy against the board and a declaration that the board president breached his duties as a director.

The court found the ten-year grandfathering provision for existing owners to be unreasonable and inconsistent with the declaration, invalidating the rule.

The court dismissed the oppression claim against the board but found that the board president breached his standard of care as a director by actively undermining the board's efforts to enforce the declaration and acting in bad faith.

The plaintiffs, former federal public servants, sued the Attorney General of Canada (AGC) for negligent misrepresentation after resigning to join a private company, Loba, and transferring their pensions to the Loba Plan, which was later revoked by the CRA.

The trial judge found the AGC liable for failing to disclose known risks about the Loba Plan and apportioned liability 80% to the AGC and 20% to the Loba Parties (third parties).

The AGC appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the findings of duty of care, misrepresentation, and causation against the AGC.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding apportionment, finding the trial judge erred in her fiduciary analysis of the Loba Parties.

The Court adjusted the apportionment of liability to 60% for the AGC and 40% for the Loba Parties.

A separate appeal by one plaintiff regarding the calculation of his damages was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision including a jointly owned life insurance policy in the deceased's estate under s. 72(1)(f) of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The policy was purchased jointly by the deceased and his spouse to pay down their mortgage, with the survivor receiving the proceeds.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the mere fact of joint ownership of the policy was not enough to trigger s. 72(1)(f), and the policy should be excluded from the estate available for distribution to dependants.

A dissenting opinion would have dismissed the appeal, finding the policy fell within the specific provisions of the Act.

The plaintiffs, Ontario residents, were injured during a shore excursion in Grenada while on a Caribbean cruise.

They sued the Canadian tour operator, the American cruise line, and the Grenadian excursion provider and driver in Ontario.

The Grenadian defendants brought a motion to stay the action against them on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal applied the real and substantial connection test and held that Ontario courts could not assume jurisdiction over the Grenadian defendants, as they had no connection to Ontario and it would be unfair to require them to litigate there.

The plaintiffs, Ontario residents, purchased a package holiday that included a cruise and a shore excursion in Grenada.

During the excursion, the plaintiff suffered carbon monoxide poisoning in a vehicle operated by the Grenadian defendants.

The plaintiffs sued the tour operators and the Grenadian defendants in Ontario.

The Grenadian defendants moved to stay the proceedings, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and was not the convenient forum.

The motions judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the subject matter of the action, and that Ontario was the most convenient forum.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for injuries sustained during a shore excursion in Grenada.

The defendants, residents of Grenada, were served ex juris and brought a motion to set aside service and stay the claims, which was dismissed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision because he failed to distinguish between the tests for jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens, and there were conflicting decisions on whether a plaintiff's residence and ongoing damages in Ontario are sufficient to establish a real and substantial connection.