Ivan S. Bloom

The applicant storage company sought a declaration that an initial certificate issued to the respondent insurer under s. 24 of the Repair and Storage Liens Act was null and void.

The applicant argued the insurer lacked standing because it had not yet indemnified the insured for the total loss of her vehicle.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the insurer had assumed liability for the storage fees under the insurance contract and was therefore subrogated to the insured's rights under s. 278(1) of the Insurance Act, giving it standing as a person lawfully entitled to the automobile.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a default judgment granting a divorce and corollary relief, alleging the applicant fraudulently induced him not to file an answer.

The applicant cross-moved to dismiss the motion and sought to introduce secretly recorded telephone conversations to rebut the fraud allegation.

The court admitted the recordings, finding their probative value outweighed the policy against such evidence in family law.

Applying the test for setting aside a default judgment, the court found no fraud but concluded the respondent had an arguable case regarding access and that justice required a full hearing on support and property issues.

The default judgment was set aside.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, which alleged a failure to provide a timely letter of reference, for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to amend the statement of claim to allege that the corporate defendant breached its policy to provide a reference.

The court allowed the amendment and dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the amended pleading sufficiently alleged a breach of the employment contract and related torts.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment seeking an order for the sale of a property or a finding of constructive trust, alleging a fraudulent conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The motion was dismissed as the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court determined that a full evidentiary record was necessary to properly assess the flow of funds from a prior property sale, an alleged loan by one defendant to his parents (the other defendants), and its repayment, which were central to determining if valuable consideration was given and if the transaction was impeachable.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) and Rule 20 to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The action claimed against the defendants under the trust provisions of the Construction Lien Act for interest and costs, and was also challenged on the basis of a limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the legal question of whether interest and costs are covered by the CLA trust was unsettled and required a full factual record at trial.

Similarly, on the limitations issue, the court determined there was a genuine issue requiring trial, particularly concerning the "appropriate means" element of discoverability under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $20,000 in damages for copyright infringement of musical compositions.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge's reasons, even when supplemented by the record, failed to adequately explain what was decided and why, particularly regarding the application of copyright principles to the facts.

Concluding that the inadequate reasons prevented meaningful appellate review and resulted in a miscarriage of justice, the court ordered a new trial.

The court considered costs following a successful motion by Hardath Singh, Ramkali Mohan, 1415006 Ontario Ltd., and Maple Leaf Wheelchair Manufacturing Inc. to secure a stay of a Notice of Arbitration.

The success was based on the legal principle against a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings of fact, which outweighed the policy favouring arbitration agreements.

Despite the successful outcome for these parties, the court ordered that costs be "in the cause" citing fairness under Rule 57.01(i).

This decision defers the final determination of costs to the trial judge, who will have a full understanding of the conflicting claims and procedural history.

The respondent, Bissonnette, brought a motion to change a final order to rescind child support arrears.

The court conducted a trial of the issue, considering whether denial of access, delay in enforcement, misrepresentation of arrears, or the child no longer being dependent should preclude enforcement.

The court found no deliberate denial of access by the applicant, no acquiescence in non-payment, and that Bissonnette's delay in seeking relief was unreasonable.

The court declined to preclude enforcement of arrears, deferring the issue of the child's lack of need and hardship to the paying party for a future trial or settlement.

The respondent father brought a motion to change an interim support order, claiming he had overpaid support and was owed money.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for payment of child and spousal support arrears based on Minutes of Settlement.

The court calculated the respondent's obligations under the Minutes of Settlement, including child support, extra-curricular expenses, and post-secondary education costs, totaling $281,720.97.

After deducting the $234,783.89 the respondent had already paid, the court ordered the respondent to pay the remaining $46,937.08 in arrears.

The accused, charged with importing heroin, brought an application to exclude evidence obtained from a cell phone, alleging a violation of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found the accused had standing to challenge the search.

However, the court held that the search warrant was validly issued, as the Information to Obtain contained sufficient evidence even if the text messages obtained during a prior search incident to arrest were excised.

Alternatively, the court found that even if a s. 8 breach occurred, the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, as the police acted in good faith and the evidence was highly reliable and necessary for adjudicating serious charges.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for damages against the respondent for allegedly improper installation of a propane system in his taxi, which he claimed caused the engine to overheat and seize.

The trial judge found insufficient evidence, specifically lacking expert testimony, to establish a causal link between the respondent's work and the engine failure.

On appeal, the appellant also moved to introduce fresh evidence.

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

The motion to adduce fresh evidence was also dismissed because it could have been discovered with due diligence and did not address the core issue of causation.

The accused pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 for his role in an investment scheme where funds were diverted from a promised offshore investment to a retirement home project.

A Gardiner hearing was held to determine if the accused was the directing and controlling mind of the fraud.

The court reviewed the accused's corporate positions, his role in soliciting investors, and his control over the flow of funds.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the directing and controlling mind of the fraud.

The moving party, a used car dealership, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the main action and crossclaim against it arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff was severely injured when a tire exploded while pushing a vehicle purchased from the moving party.

The responding party relied on the implied condition of merchantability under the Sale of Goods Act, alleging the vehicle's electronic traction control system was defective at the time of sale.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the operability of the traction control system at the time of sale and the risk of inconsistent findings of fact.

The applicants sought to stay a Notice of Arbitration delivered by the respondent regarding an oppression claim, arguing that the dispute involved a non-party to the arbitration agreement and shared factual underpinnings with an ongoing court action.

The court found that while the non-party issue was not a roadblock to arbitration, there was a real danger of overlapping evidence and inconsistent findings of fact between the arbitration and the ongoing action.

The court granted the stay, ordering all matters to proceed in the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant sought a declaration that an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property remained in full force and effect.

The respondent argued that the agreement, which was tied to a lease, had been terminated due to chronically late rental payments and other alleged breaches, relying on the principle that full performance was a condition precedent to exercising the option to purchase.

The court found that the principles of fundamental and anticipatory breach applied, rather than strict condition precedent.

The court concluded that the respondent failed to properly terminate the agreement within a reasonable time and granted the declaration that the purchase and sale agreement remained valid.

The plaintiffs in a motor vehicle negligence action brought a motion to strike portions of the statement of defence on the basis that it failed to plead material facts regarding damages as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

They also sought an order requiring the defendant to answer a list of written discovery questions.

The court held that the impugned pleadings sufficiently set out material facts relating to damages, particularly given that the defendant would not yet possess detailed knowledge of the plaintiff’s medical condition.

The court further found that the proposed written discovery questions constituted an improper and excessive use of the discovery process.

The motion was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant brought a motion under Family Law Rule 11(3) seeking leave to amend her application to include a claim under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The proposed amendment alleged that following separation the respondent transferred substantial funds from a corporation owned directly or indirectly by the applicant to a corporation owned by the respondent.

The respondent opposed the amendment on the basis that the corporations involved should be added as parties to the proceeding.

The court held that amendments should be permitted unless the responding party would suffer non-compensable prejudice, and found that the s. 5(6) claim could be adjudicated without adding the corporations.

The motion to amend was therefore granted.

Following reasons on a motion to change involving a mobility dispute, the court determined the issue of costs.

The responding party had been clearly successful on the motion, particularly on the central mobility issue, triggering the presumption under Family Law Rule 24 that a successful party is entitled to costs.

The court rejected allegations that the moving party acted in bad faith, finding no sinister motive despite vigorous litigation conduct.

Considering the importance and complexity of the issues, the volume of the record, and the overall circumstances, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time to serve a Statement of Claim arising from a motor vehicle collision, or alternatively to validate service nunc pro tunc.

The court applied the governing principles for extending time under the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that relevant prejudice must arise from delay in service rather than the passage of time since the cause of action arose.

The defendant’s insurer had early notice of the potential claim through a third‑party notice letter shortly after the accident, enabling investigation if desired.

The defendant failed to provide evidence of actual prejudice caused by the delay.

The court therefore granted a 21‑day extension of time for service and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 26.01 to add a maintenance contractor as a defendant in a personal injury action arising from an escalator incident at a theatre.

The motion was served more than two years after the accident, requiring the court to determine whether the discoverability principle under the Limitations Act, 2002 could extend the limitation period.

The court found that the plaintiff had early knowledge of the contractor’s potential involvement through incident reports and communications with insurance adjusters but took no investigative steps to pursue the claim.

The court held that neither the plaintiff nor her counsel demonstrated due diligence sufficient to establish a triable issue on discoverability.

The motion to add the proposed defendant was therefore refused as statute-barred.