Ian R. Stauffer

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the parties brought motions and cross-motions to resolve outstanding undertakings, refusals, and a proposed pleading amendment.

The court denied the defendant's request for the plaintiff's CAS and medical records, noting the plaintiff limited her Family Law Act claim.

The court ordered the defendant to produce MTO records and witness contact information but denied the request for the deceased defendant's medical records.

Finally, the court granted the defendant Estate leave to amend its statement of defence to plead plene administravit, protecting the estate trustees from personal liability, without requiring further discovery.

The applicant brought a motion for costs against the appellants, alleging unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious conduct, as well as bad faith, resulting in unnecessary delays and expenses during an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found no evidence to support the applicant's allegations of misconduct by the appellants.

The motion for costs was dismissed, and the appellants' request for costs for responding to the motion was also denied.

The plaintiff brought an urgent, ex parte motion in writing for a certificate of pending litigation to be registered on the title of the home she shared with the deceased.

The plaintiff claimed an interest in the property based on a constructive trust.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that serving the estate trustee was impracticable or unnecessary, noting ongoing communications between the parties.

The motion was adjourned to be brought on notice, with an interim order preventing the estate from agreeing to a closing date for the sale of the property without consent or court order.

The appellants purchased a commercial property that was later discovered to be contaminated.

They sued the vendor for failing to disclose the contamination and their real estate lawyer for negligence.

The trial judge dismissed the claims, finding that the purchaser actually knew about the contamination before waiving the environmental condition and closing the transaction, and had instructed the lawyer not to order further reports.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility and findings of fact.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 20.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim had already been settled and therefore no genuine issue required a trial.

The court held that the defendant failed to establish on the evidentiary record that a binding settlement existed or that the alleged settlement was not unconscionable.

Outstanding factual issues included whether the parties had reached a meeting of the minds, whether a signed release was an essential condition, and whether the plaintiff had adequate information and advice when negotiating the settlement with the insurer’s adjuster.

Applying the unconscionability framework from Titus v. William F. Cooke Enterprises Inc., the court found that the record was insufficient to determine the fairness of the transaction or the balance of bargaining power.

The court concluded that genuine issues requiring a trial remained.

During a jury trial concerning an alleged agreement to share proceeds of a winning Lotto 6/49 ticket, the defendant moved for a non-suit after the plaintiff closed her case.

The court considered whether the plaintiff’s evidence could support a breach of contract claim for a one-third share of lottery winnings based on an alleged oral agreement involving the defendant and a third party.

The court held there was no evidence of a “meeting of the minds” with the third party and no agency relationship allowing the defendant to bind that party to a contract.

As a result, no reasonable jury could find a valid contract existed.

The non-suit motion on the breach of contract claim was granted, the jury was dismissed, and the remaining equitable trust claims were left to be determined by the judge.

The plaintiffs purchased a commercial plaza that was contaminated with PCE from a former dry cleaning business.

They sued the vendor for fraudulent misrepresentation, alleging the vendor concealed environmental reports showing the contamination.

They also sued their real estate lawyer for professional negligence, alleging she failed to obtain the reports or properly advise them regarding the environmental condition.

The court dismissed the action against all defendants.

The court found as a fact that the vendor had provided the environmental reports to the purchaser before the environmental condition was waived.

The court also found that the lawyer met the standard of care, as the purchaser had taken responsibility for satisfying the environmental condition and had instructed her to waive it after receiving the reports.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to enforce letters rogatory from California that would have required the respondents to be examined under oath in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the appellant failed to establish the necessity of the examinations or that the evidence was not otherwise obtainable.

Motions by both parties to introduce fresh evidence were dismissed, as the evidence was peripheral and not capable of affecting the outcome.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her personal injury action on a pre-trial motion under s. 266(3) of the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the motions judge improperly disregarded uncontradicted affidavit and medical evidence concerning a significant deterioration in the appellant's condition in the 18 months preceding the motion.

Applying the appellate intervention principle for disregarded evidence, the onus framework under Chilman, and the three-step analysis from Meyer v. Bright, the court concluded that the record was capable of establishing a permanent serious impairment of an important bodily function caused by continuing physical injury.

Because the entire record was documentary and the respondents had not challenged the late medical evidence by cross-examination or responding evidence, the court set aside the order and dismissed the respondents' motion.

The appellant was awarded costs of the motion and the appeal.

In a family property appeal concerning equalization of a vested defined benefit pension, the Supreme Court addressed whether the pension should be valued using the termination value-added method or the termination pro rata method under Ontario’s Family Law Act.

The majority held that the Act does not mandate the value-added method and that, absent special circumstances, the pro rata method more equitably reflects the nature of a defined benefit pension, particularly where there is substantial pre-marital pensionable service.

The court upheld the trial judge’s assumed retirement date, refused to make “if and when” pension payments the default settlement mechanism, and left spousal support undisturbed.

The appeal was allowed only on pension valuation method and costs, and the matter was remanded for recalculation of the equalization payment.