Ian Barclay McBride

The defendant employee brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff employer's action for alleged theft.

The employer's principal had previously been convicted of attempting to extort the employee based on these same theft allegations.

The court found there was no admissible evidence of any theft occurring at the plaintiff's premises, let alone by the defendant.

The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the claim against the defendant.

Investors sued a chartered accountant and his consulting corporation alleging breach of fiduciary duty and negligence after losing money in complex domestic and offshore investment structures connected to an investment club and related entities.

The court found the advisor promoted the investments, failed to disclose commissions, and reassured the investors about the legitimacy of the structure despite serious regulatory concerns and structural deficiencies in the investment scheme.

The relationship involved trust, reliance, and vulnerability sufficient to create a fiduciary duty.

The advisor breached that duty by failing to disclose conflicts, failing to warn about regulatory issues, and misrepresenting the diligence performed.

Liability was imposed for the plaintiffs’ investment in the domestic issuer but not for later investments made after regulatory warnings, which the court held the plaintiffs unreasonably failed to mitigate.

The defendants brought an unopposed motion seeking several forms of relief in a construction lien action, including vacating a claim for lien and certificate of action, ordering security for costs, and compelling production of financial records and responses to undertakings.

The court considered s. 44(2) of the Construction Lien Act and determined that, based on the defendants’ evidence and the absence of any responding materials from the plaintiff, there was no genuine issue requiring trial in relation to the lien claim.

The lien and certificate of action were therefore vacated without requiring any payment into court.

The court also applied Rule 56.01(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that security for costs was appropriate because the plaintiff corporation appeared to lack sufficient assets in Ontario.

Security for costs was ordered in the amount of $17,500 along with production obligations and costs of the motion.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, an American corporation with no assets in Ontario.

The parties were involved in a contractual dispute over a plant relocation contract.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that it had sufficient assets in a reciprocating jurisdiction or that it was impecunious.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $5,000 into court as a partial payment of security for costs, with the issue of any additional amount to be decided by the referee.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's breach of tender claim.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff, an Ontario corporation, was an ineligible bidder under the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act because the effective bidder was its related Quebec corporation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had effectively relocated to Ontario by establishing a corporate office and expanding its operations in the province, thereby exempting it from the restrictions of the Act.

The moving parties sought directions regarding compliance with a prior court order addressing undertakings, advisements, and objections arising from examinations for discovery.

The dispute concerned whether the defendants had adequately addressed issues relating to corporate ownership and control, particularly whether a named entity was a subsidiary of other defendants.

The court accepted admissions provided by defence counsel confirming the relevant corporate relationships and held that these admissions satisfied the earlier order’s requirements.

The admissions were permitted to be entered into evidence to prove the truth of their contents.

The moving parties were awarded modest costs payable by certain defendants.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The respondents requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing the issues were dealt with by the WSIB and an Employment Standards Officer.

The Tribunal dismissed the pre-leave allegations for lack of jurisdiction, as they were not linked to a Code ground or were out of time.

However, the Tribunal refused to dismiss the post-leave reprisal allegations under s. 45.1, finding that the other proceedings had not appropriately dealt with the substance of those Code-based claims.

The applicants sought judicial review to set aside a settlement reached by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board in a subrogated action against the respondent.

The Board, acting as dominus litis, settled the action for $130,000 after considering an independent legal opinion and the applicants' position.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and found that the Board's decision to compromise the lawsuit was reasonable, dismissing the application.

The appellant rented a loader from the respondent and accidentally submerged it in water, causing severe engine damage.

The respondent successfully sued in Small Claims Court for repair costs and lost rental income.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court, raising issues regarding machine identification, causation of the engine damage, proof of lost rentals, betterment, and the damage waiver clause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and liability.