Ian R. Dick

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) sought an urgent interlocutory injunction against four long-term care (LTC) facilities experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks, alleging breaches of Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) Directives regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) and infection control.

The ONA contended that the facilities failed to provide necessary PPE, particularly N95 masks, and implement appropriate administrative controls like isolating and cohorting residents and staff.

The facilities argued they complied with directives and that the ONA sought control over scarce resources.

The court found that the matter, though a labour dispute, required the court's inherent jurisdiction due to the inability to expedite arbitral processes.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious question to be tried and irreparable harm to nurses and residents.

The balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, prioritizing health and safety.

The court ordered the LTC facilities to provide nurses with access to N95 respirators and other appropriate PPE based on point-of-care assessment and to implement administrative controls as per CMOH Directives.

The self-represented plaintiff moved for leave to amend his statement of claim to add several new causes of action and for further documentary production from the defendant bank.

The court denied most of the proposed amendments, finding them to be statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, or untenable based on prior court rulings.

However, the court allowed amendments related to bad faith referencing, intentional interference with economic relations, breach of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court also ordered the defendant to produce certain documents related to the allowed claims, while denying production of other requested documents.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

This appeal concerns a wrongful dismissal claim by a former wardrobe stylist and fashion studio manager who worked for the defendant for 23 years (1994-2017).

The motion judge found the employee was a dependent contractor from 1994 to 2004, then became an employee.

The termination clause was found void as it attempted to contract out of minimum standards under the Employment Standards Act.

The court awarded 21 months' pay in lieu of notice, 10 percent of base salary for loss of benefits, compensation for unlawful wage deductions, and damages for loss of cell phone allowance.

The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.

This endorsement addresses costs for a motion brought by Daniel Sherk, seeking to compel Verge Insurance Brokers Limited to pay the balance of Deloitte's forensic accounting fees.

Daniel Sherk was unsuccessful in his motion.

The court awarded Verge partial indemnity costs, fixing them at $37,500.00, significantly less than the $79,629.31 requested on a substantial indemnity basis.

Additionally, Verge was awarded $1,500.00 for its involvement in Deloitte's separate application for payment.

The court emphasized reasonableness and proportionality in fixing costs, noting that the motion was uncomplicated and senior counsel's time appeared inordinate.

Deloitte, a forensic expert, brought a motion for costs against Daniel Sherk for an outstanding account, following a prior ruling that established Sherk's responsibility for the balance.

Sherk had agreed to judgment for the amount owed but disputed the basis and quantum of costs.

The court found Sherk's opposition was not "reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous" to warrant substantial indemnity costs or sanctions.

The court awarded Deloitte costs on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the requested amount from $27,546.00 to $17,500.00, considering proportionality and Deloitte's failure to respond to Sherk's offer.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order for the defendant to produce and preserve certain documents.

The motion addressed six classes of documents, with one class resolved by consent.

The court ordered the production of delinquency reports, mortgage payment and interest histories for alleged fraud files, and the plaintiff's final Horizon Report showing termination status.

Requests for specific BNS policies and additional communications were dismissed without prejudice, allowing for further motions after examinations for discovery.

The interim preservation order for the ordered documents was continued, but a broader preservation request was denied due to lack of specificity.

This endorsement addresses costs arising from two summary judgment motions.

The Plaintiff successfully defended Halton's motion to dismiss claims against it, and also successfully defended against Mervyn White and Carters PC's motion to dismiss claims against them, though White and Carters PC obtained a declaration regarding the limitation period.

The court found the Plaintiff entirely successful in defending both motions and entitled to costs.

It also found it reasonable to join the defendants and applied the Moore v. Wienecke framework for a Bullock order, requiring Halton to pay a majority of White and Carters PC's costs due to Halton's motion effectively shifting responsibility and prompting White and Carters PC's companion motion.

The plaintiff, Gary Curtis, brought a motion seeking an order to schedule examinations for discovery.

The Master dismissed the motion, finding a lack of jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.

The Master noted that Justice Dow had previously ordered common discoveries and trial for this action and a related action (CV-15-524203), and a Rule 21 motion to strike claims in the related action was pending before Justice Dow.

The Master determined that ordering discoveries would effectively vary a judge's order, which is beyond a Master's jurisdiction, and that the Rule 21 motion should be heard first to streamline the litigation process.

The defendants, The Corporation of the Regional Municipality of Halton and the plaintiff's former lawyers (Mervyn F. White and Carters Professional Corporation), brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for long-term disability (LTD) benefits.

Halton argued the LTD application was late, the plaintiff's employment was terminated, and the claim was statute-barred.

The former lawyers sought dismissal if the claims against Halton were time-barred.

The court granted the plaintiff relief from forfeiture for the late LTD application, finding Halton's misleading information and failure to assist contributed to the delay.

It also determined that the termination of employment did not preclude the claim and that the two-year statutory limitation period applied, which had not expired.

Both defendants' motions for summary judgment were dismissed.

The defendant Daniel Sherk moved for the plaintiffs (Verge Insurance Brokers Limited et al.) to pay the total costs incurred by Deloitte Forensic Inc. for recreating, preserving, and analyzing 79 backup tapes.

The court reviewed previous orders by Quinn J. and Turnbull J., which stipulated that while Verge had an obligation to produce relevant documents from the tapes, Daniel's subsequent audit by Deloitte was generally at his own expense.

The court found that Verge had already paid for Deloitte's analysis of the initial 13 tapes as ordered by Turnbull J. due to Verge's initial non-compliance.

However, Daniel's motion for Verge to cover the additional costs for the remaining 66 tapes (approximately $280,000) was dismissed, with the possibility of rearguing these costs as disbursements at trial.

The court also denied Deloitte's claim for interest on the $67,613.99 already paid by Verge, as Deloitte had failed to cash the cheque promptly.

The applicant brought a motion for an interim payment out of court of funds held to the credit of the action following a shareholder dispute and oppression application.

The court previously ordered funds paid into court as security pending trial.

Relying on a recent Divisional Court decision upholding a similar prior interim payment, the court found the applicant was entitled to the funds under the formula established by the previous order.

The motion was granted and a payment of $392,712.50 was ordered.

In a case conference endorsement, the court addressed two procedural issues: the plaintiffs' request for all defendants to attend judicial mediation in person, and the defendants' request for leave to bring a motion to resolve approximately 150 discovery objections made under Rule 34.12.

The court declined to compel attendance at mediation, noting that sophisticated commercial parties should negotiate such matters themselves.

Regarding discovery objections, the court denied leave for a pre-trial motion, emphasizing the principles of proportionality, efficiency, and affordability articulated in Hryniak v Mauldin.

The judge stressed that rulings on admissibility under Rule 34.12 are best made by the trier of fact at trial or summary judgment, and that counsel should focus on material objections rather than engaging in expensive interlocutory motions.

An extension for setting the action down for trial was granted by consent.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to answer approximately 58 refusals arising from an examination for discovery.

The underlying action involves claims of breach of a dealership agreement, trademark infringement, and false warranty claims.

The court applied the principles of relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to make further inquiries regarding a specific networking trip and to produce targeted reports related to alleged false warranty claims, but dismissed the defendants' requests for broader electronic searches and financial records as disproportionate.

The moving parties sought to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had quashed their appeal of an interim order for payment out of court.

The single judge had quashed the appeal on the basis that the underlying order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact.

The panel agreed that the underlying order, which directed an interim payment out of funds held in court pending the final determination of a shareholder dispute, did not finally dispose of the moving parties' rights and was therefore interlocutory.

The appellants appealed a case management judge's order requiring them to reimburse the respondent for the costs of a forensic review of backup tapes containing email communications.

The motion judge found that the appellants had failed to comply with their documentary discovery obligations and had made misstatements about their review of the backup tapes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings and concluding that the relief granted was procedurally fair and within the scope of the motion.

The defendant Daniel Sherk sought leave to appeal an order denying various requests for document production.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the procedural motion did not involve matters of general or public importance beyond the immediate parties, thus failing the second part of the strict two-part test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(b).

Provincial sport association members of a national non-profit sought an order calling a members' meeting after the corporation's directors refused a requisition and then denied access to the membership list needed to call the meeting themselves.

The court held that the statutory exception permitting refusal where a proposal clearly seeks to enforce a personal claim or redress a personal grievance did not apply, because the dispute reflected broad policy and governance disagreements rather than a narrow personal vendetta.

The respondent's pending request to the Director for an exemption from disclosure of the members register did not create any stay or justify frustrating the applicants' meeting rights.

The court ordered the corporation to call a meeting to consider the resolutions set out in the April 2, 2015 notice.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction restraining them from soliciting the plaintiff's clients and using its confidential information.

The individual defendants had left the plaintiff's employment to join the corporate defendant, allegedly taking client lists and soliciting clients in breach of non-solicitation agreements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's application of the strong prima facie case test, the finding of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business viability, and the balance of convenience.

Following an earlier endorsement granting interlocutory injunctions concerning non‑solicitation and confidentiality, the court addressed the issue of costs of the motion.

The parties agreed on the quantum of costs at $105,000 all inclusive.

The court fixed the quantum accordingly but declined to determine liability for those costs at this stage.

Liability was reserved for the judge who will determine the final disposition of the action, to avoid prejudging potential outcomes or factual developments.

The applicant, a First Nations constable, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision dismissing his complaint that his suspension and termination by the OPP Commissioner were discriminatory and acts of reprisal.

The applicant had been terminated after making public comments criticizing the OPP.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the exclusion of First Nations constables from the procedural protections of the Police Services Act was not discriminatory, but rather respected First Nations self-government.

The Court also upheld the finding that the termination was not a reprisal under the Human Rights Code, as the applicant's public comments were not an assertion of human rights.

A related application by the First Nation Council alleging a denial of natural justice was also dismissed.