Ian F. Leach

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff was awarded substantial damages, the defendant insurer brought a motion for a ruling that the plaintiff's claims did not meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff's chronic low back pain was caused by the accident and constituted a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, concluding that the plaintiff met the statutory threshold for non-pecuniary loss and future care costs.

The accused was charged with obstructing justice and several firearms offences after removing a shell casing from the scene of a shooting and storing an AK-47 rifle and prohibited magazine in his bedroom.

The police conducted a warrantless entry into his home under exigent circumstances to preserve evidence, during which they found the rifle.

A subsequent warranted search located the magazine.

The court found the accused guilty of obstructing justice.

On a Charter application, the court ruled the warrantless entry was lawful but the seizure of the rifle violated s. 8 as it was not in plain view.

However, the rifle was admitted under s. 24(2).

The search warrant was upheld as valid.

The accused was found guilty on all counts, with two counts conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order dismissing her action against her former paralegal for alleged breach of contract and negligence.

The Deputy Judge had dismissed the action at a settlement conference, finding it to be an 'abuse of process' because it related to a previously settled claim against her former lawyer.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Deputy Judge provided insufficient reasons and erred in characterizing the action as an abuse of process.

The court noted there is no per se rule that negligence actions against legal representatives involving re-litigation of issues from a previous proceeding are an abuse of process.

The dismissal order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for trial before a different judge.

Following dismissal of an application seeking enforcement of letters rogatory issued by a United States court in foreign patent litigation, the court addressed costs.

The successful respondent sought full indemnity costs exceeding $72,000, arguing that non‑parties resisting letters rogatory should be fully indemnified.

The court held that while full indemnity may be appropriate in some cases involving non‑party respondents, the scale and quantum of costs remain discretionary and must satisfy the overriding principle of reasonableness and proportionality under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the hours and number of legal professionals involved excessive given the limited record and straightforward issues.

Costs were therefore fixed at a reduced all‑inclusive amount.

The plaintiff was severely injured in a single-vehicle rollover accident on a rural gravel road.

She sued the municipality, alleging the accident was caused by the road's poor state of repair, specifically the presence of potholes and loose gravel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the road was in a reasonable state of repair for a rural gravel road and that the potholes did not constitute a state of disrepair.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the accident was caused entirely by the plaintiff's own negligence, including driving at an excessive speed and overcorrecting after encountering an oncoming vehicle.

The court also found that the plaintiff was not wearing her seatbelt, which would have resulted in a 25% reduction in damages for contributory negligence had the municipality been found liable.

The offender was sentenced following convictions after trial for multiple firearm offences arising from a traffic stop in which police discovered two loaded handguns concealed in a vehicle, one of which was stolen, while the offender was subject to a weapons prohibition order.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in sentencing for possession of loaded prohibited firearms, particularly where weapons are accessible in a public setting.

Aggravating factors included possession of two loaded handguns, one stolen firearm, breach of a weapons prohibition order, and the offender’s criminal record and poor rehabilitation prospects.

Concurrent sentences totalling five years were imposed for the firearms offences, with a consecutive nine‑month sentence for breaching the prohibition order.

The court granted credit for pre‑sentence custody on a 1‑for‑1 basis but declined enhanced credit due to misconduct during remand.

The defendants moved under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, and s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to stay an Ontario action arising from a commercial distribution agreement.

The agreement contained a clause selecting German law and requiring binding arbitration through the Frankfurt Chamber of Commerce for “any disputes.” The court held that such forum selection and arbitration clauses are presumptively enforceable and that the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating “strong cause” to avoid enforcement.

The plaintiff’s allegations of egregious contractual and tortious conduct did not constitute strong cause, as merits‑based arguments cannot defeat a forum selection clause.

The court further held that the clause applied to related tort claims and to individual defendants whose alleged conduct was intertwined with the contractual dispute.

The applicants sought an order enforcing letters rogatory issued by a United States District Court to compel documentary and oral discovery from the respondent, an Ontario non-party, for use in US patent litigation.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing the request was overly broad and the evidence insufficient.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the applicants failed to demonstrate that the requested evidence was relevant by Ontario standards, necessary for trial, not otherwise obtainable, identified with reasonable specificity, and not unduly burdensome.

Following a civil jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a motion for a ruling that the plaintiffs' claims did not meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The jury had awarded modest damages, implicitly rejecting much of the plaintiffs' evidence on causation and credibility.

However, the trial judge conducted an independent assessment and found the principal plaintiff to be credible.

The court concluded that the plaintiff suffered from chronic low back pain caused by the accident, which constituted a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, and the court ruled that the plaintiffs met the statutory threshold.

The applicant moved for summary judgment under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules to enforce a handwritten settlement agreement signed by the parties.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought to set aside the agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, arguing that his severe medical conditions and medications impaired his capacity to understand the agreement.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion for summary judgment, finding that a genuine issue requiring a trial existed.

The court held that the expanded fact-finding powers available under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, and even if they did, the conflicting evidence regarding the respondent's capacity required a full trial to achieve a full appreciation of the issues.

The plaintiffs sought costs following a 22-day product liability trial where the jury awarded them $1,157,850 in damages but found the plaintiff 25% contributorily negligent.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the plaintiffs' request for substantial indemnity costs and a cost premium.

The court also declined the defendants' request to reduce the costs award by 25% to reflect the contributory negligence finding, noting that the plaintiff's negligence did not materially affect the prospects for settlement.

The plaintiffs were awarded $387,140 in fees, plus HST and disbursements.

Commercial tenant sought a declaration that its lease remained in force after the landlord purported to terminate the lease for alleged non‑rental defaults involving use of areas outside the leased premises.

The court held that the landlord’s termination was invalid because the statutory notice under s.19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act was deficient, failed to require monetary compensation for the alleged breaches, and the landlord had waived reliance on the defaults by accepting rent after issuing the notice.

The alleged conduct was also largely condoned for years and was not sufficiently serious to justify forfeiture.

The lease therefore remained in effect and the tenant was entitled to damages for the wrongful lockout.

The quantification of damages was deferred to a later proceeding.

The plaintiff was injured in a single-vehicle accident involving his own vehicle and sought to amend his statement of claim to assert a claim against his own automobile insurer under the OPCF 44R family protection endorsement.

He alleged that an unlicenced acquaintance was driving the vehicle at the time.

The motion judge dismissed the motion on the basis that the claim was not tenable in law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the motion judge erred in her interpretation of the endorsement, the proposed claim was ultimately untenable in any of the possible factual scenarios.

The parties separated after an 11-year marriage, leaving two young daughters in the primary care of the applicant mother.

The respondent father sought joint custody and shared residence, while the applicant sought sole custody.

The court found that the parties' high level of conflict and inability to communicate made joint custody unworkable, awarding sole custody to the applicant.

The court also modified the access schedule to provide more stability for the children.

Additionally, the court imputed income to the respondent based on his undeclared earnings as a sports referee, setting his income for child support purposes at $90,000, and ordered him to contribute to section 7 daycare expenses.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment against his uncle, the defendant, for damages arising from sexual abuse that occurred in 1975 when the plaintiff was 12 years old.

The defendant initially defended the action but later withdrew his statement of defence and was noted in default.

The court found the defendant liable for sexual abuse, assault, battery, and negligence, and concluded that the abuse caused the plaintiff's severe psychological trauma and loss of earning capacity.

The court awarded the plaintiff $95,000 in general and aggravated damages, $85,000 for loss of earning capacity, $10,250 for future care costs, and $30,000 in punitive damages, along with substantial indemnity costs.

The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing a claim brought by an investor seeking indemnification under a Financial Institution Bond issued to a corporation.

The plaintiff alleged that fraudulent conduct associated with an investment scheme triggered fidelity coverage under the bond.

The court held that the claim was barred by issue estoppel arising from prior Divisional Court findings that the insured corporation had not suffered a fidelity loss and could not be defrauded by its sole directing mind.

The bond provided first‑party indemnity only to the named insured and required discovery, notice, and proof of loss within specified time limits, none of which were satisfied.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring trial and that the plaintiff’s claim could not succeed as a matter of law.

During a product liability jury trial, the defendants requested that the jury be charged on the doctrine of spoliation because the plaintiffs discarded the broken pieces of the cookware that allegedly caused the injury.

The court declined to charge the jury on spoliation, finding no evidence that the plaintiffs intentionally destroyed the evidence to affect ongoing or contemplated litigation.

The plaintiffs discarded the broken pieces shortly after the accident without contemplating a lawsuit.

A housing co‑operative applied under s.171.13 of the Co‑operative Corporations Act for a declaration that the respondents’ membership and occupancy rights were terminated and for a writ of possession.

The termination followed a confrontation between one respondent and another co‑op member, which the board and general membership concluded justified eviction.

The court held that the co‑op failed to comply with principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, including inadequate notice, expansion of allegations beyond the notice, denial of the respondents’ opportunity to respond to prejudicial allegations, and restricting voting options during the membership appeal contrary to the statute.

The court further found no reasonable basis to terminate the second respondent’s membership and occupancy rights.

Because the termination decisions were procedurally unfair and unsupported as to one respondent, the requested declaration and writ of possession were refused.

The accused was charged with two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking under s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following execution of a search warrant at his apartment.

Police discovered 0.9 grams of crack cocaine in the accused’s bedroom and 5.2 grams of cocaine on the hallway floor, along with a digital scale bearing cocaine residue.

The court held that circumstantial evidence established the accused’s knowledge and possession of the bedroom cocaine but did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the hallway cocaine, as an equally plausible inference was that another occupant discarded it when police entered.

The Crown also failed to prove that the bedroom cocaine was possessed for the purpose of trafficking, as the small quantity and packaging were consistent with personal use by an admitted addict.

The accused was acquitted on both trafficking counts but convicted of the lesser included offence of simple possession relating to the bedroom cocaine.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction sentence after pleading guilty to using a stolen credit card and possessing credit cards obtained by crime.

He argued that the sentencing judge erred by relying on facts not in evidence, misapprehending the facts, and improperly emphasizing denunciation and deterrence over rehabilitation when declining to grant a conditional discharge.

The court held that the sentencing judge properly relied on the agreed facts and reasonably concluded that the offences involved planning and deceit.

Applying the deferential appellate standard for sentence appeals, the court found no error in principle and concluded the sentence of fines totaling $1,000 and 18 months’ probation was not demonstrably unfit.

The appeal was dismissed.