Jack Edmund Masterman

The appellant appealed an order finding that the civil courts had jurisdiction over the respondent's claims of sexual assault by a priest and negligence by the appellant.

The appellant argued the motion judge breached natural justice by relying on an academic article and case law not raised by the parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge's reference to an academic article criticizing prior case law did not breach natural justice, as it did not involve relying on facts outside the record.

The Court upheld the finding that the dispute was not purely ecclesiastical in nature and subject to canon law.

Furthermore, the Court found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion under the Van Breda framework.

This standalone costs decision followed reasons continuing an interim injunction and certificate of pending litigation until trial.

The successful moving parties sought partial indemnity costs and disbursements, while the responding parties argued costs should be in the cause or reduced.

Applying the ordinary rule that costs follow the result and the discretion applicable to interlocutory injunction proceedings, the court fixed costs itself rather than reserving all costs to trial.

The court found the moving parties were largely successful and awarded reduced partial indemnity costs plus limited disbursements, while reserving transcript-cost issues to the trial judge.

The plaintiff, John Shane, sought damages from Ontario Aboriginal Housing Support Services Corporation (OAHS) for property damage caused by a fire in a rental unit leased to OAHS clients.

Shane claimed OAHS had orally agreed to cover all property damage caused by its clients, or, in the alternative, that OAHS was negligent in supporting the tenants.

The court found no oral contract existed, as there was no meeting of the minds or clear promise by OAHS to cover all damages.

The court also found no evidence of negligence by OAHS.

The claim was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment finding them liable for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The appellants argued that the agreement never became binding because the respondent accepted an extension offer one day late.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the appellants elected to treat the contract as ongoing by subsequently waiving conditions, paying a second deposit, and engaging in conduct consistent with a binding agreement.

The expectation damages award of $142,757.89 was upheld.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelled the Appellant's Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate, alleging the Appellant was related to two other companies whose CVORs were previously cancelled for poor safety records.

The Appellant appealed the cancellation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant was indeed related to and controlled by the former CVOR holders, based on unorthodox financial arrangements, shared services, and common management activities.

However, given the Appellant's acceptable safety record during its brief period of operation, the Tribunal varied the Registrar's order, imposing strict conditions on the Appellant's CVOR rather than outright cancellation.

This summary judgment motion concerned a failed real estate purchase of a newly constructed home.

The plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract, while the defendants sought the return of their deposits.

The central dispute revolved around whether the agreement was void due to the plaintiff's late acceptance of a conditional term extension, despite a "time is of the essence" clause.

The court found that the defendants, by their subsequent actions (delivering a waiver, paying a second deposit, and later acknowledging inability to close while requesting mitigation), affirmed the contract.

The court concluded the contract was binding and anticipatorily breached by the defendants.

Damages were awarded to the plaintiff for the difference in sale price and some carrying costs, but not for all claimed expenses due to insufficient documentation.

The plaintiff, a golf course operator, sought an interim injunction to regain possession of the golf course after the defendant owner purported to terminate their lease agreement.

The lease included a profit-sharing arrangement.

The defendant alleged breaches including failure to obtain a liquor license, poor record-keeping, and self-dealing by the plaintiff's principals, specifically pocketing cash from memberships and restaurant sales.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored the defendant due to the plaintiff's "unclean hands" and the irreparable breakdown of trust in the profit-sharing venture.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action regarding a collapsed hog barn, arguing it was barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs argued the limitation period was tolled due to the defendants' wilful concealment of construction deficiencies.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the fraudulent concealment exception for the corporate defendants and dismissed their motion.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the action against the individual engineer defendants, finding they were protected by a limitation of liability clause in their employer's contract.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion for $242,546.99 USD owed for shipments of corn, plus interest, and sought to enforce a personal guarantee against the individual defendant.

The corporate defendant admitted owing money but disputed the exact amount and interest charges, while the individual defendant disputed the validity and scope of the personal guarantee.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the evidence clearly established the debt, the contractual interest rate, and the unlimited scope of the personal guarantee.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence in an action for a construction debt and breach of trust.

The defendants failed to produce a proper affidavit of documents, failed to attend scheduled examinations for discovery, and offered no credible commitment to remedy their non-compliance over the course of a year.

Applying the principles from Falcon Lumber, the court found the defendants' non-compliance to be deliberate, material, and unequivocal.

The court exercised its discretion to strike the statement of defence and awarded the plaintiff costs thrown away.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its motion to enforce a share purchase agreement.

The parties negotiated a $100,000 purchase price for shares, and the respondent sent an unexecuted share purchase agreement to the appellant.

The appellant executed it, but the respondent did not.

The motion judge found that the agreement contained an enurement provision requiring execution by both parties to be effective, meaning there was no intention to contract until formal execution.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the parties intended to defer their obligations until a formal contract was executed.

Following an appeal of an arbitration award where success was divided, the appellants sought costs of $24,322.76.

The respondents argued that each party should bear their own costs or, alternatively, costs should be fixed at $3,500.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Finding that the appellants were successful in having the arbitrator's reasons deemed inadequate on one issue, while the respondents were successful in having the matter remitted to the original arbitrator, the court concluded that success was divided and made no order as to costs.

The appellants sought leave to appeal an arbitration award arising from the termination of a medical practice business relationship.

The arbitrator had awarded the respondents $946,071, which included a refund of overhead expenses and 'Special Expenses' deducted by the appellants.

The court found that the parties had not contracted out of the right to appeal under s. 45 of the Arbitration Act.

Leave to appeal was granted because the adequacy of the arbitrator's reasons constituted a question of law.

The court held that the arbitrator's reasons were inadequate regarding the Special Expenses, as they failed to explain why the appellants were ordered to repay those amounts.

The court varied the award to order repayment of a 5% overhead increase and remitted the Special Expenses issue back to the original arbitrator for determination.

The court determined costs for contempt proceedings initiated by Atif Kamran against Dan Andersson and LEO Canada Inc. While Kamran succeeded in having Andersson found in contempt for some breaches, Andersson successfully purged his contempt and resisted many of Kamran's requested penalties.

The court found success was divided, and Kamran's approach to the penalty phase was overly aggressive.

No costs were awarded to LEO Canada Inc. or Geraldine Aquino.

The court awarded Atif Kamran $40,000 in all-inclusive costs from Dan Andersson, on a partial indemnity basis, and dismissed Andersson's cross-motion for costs.

The appellants appealed a decision granting an oppression application and ordering the production of financial documents to the minority shareholder.

The application judge found that the majority shareholder's refusal to provide financial disclosure and call a shareholders meeting constituted oppressive conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the application judge's interchangeable reference to the minority shareholder company and its principal.

The Court upheld the finding that the minority shareholder had a reasonable expectation of ongoing access to financial disclosure, which was violated by the appellants' conduct.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also denied.

The plaintiff, Stephen Deak, brought an action against GreenMantra Recycling Technologies Ltd. concerning the validity of an overtime averaging agreement and a termination clause in his employment contract.

The court found the overtime averaging agreement invalid under section 22 of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, because it lacked an expiry date.

The court also found the termination clause unenforceable as it provided for a notice period less than the minimum prescribed by the ESA, thereby entitling the employee to statutory notice.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion brought by defendant Atif Kamran to remove Siskinds LLP as counsel for plaintiffs Dan Andersson and LEO Canada Inc., and to compel document production.

The court awarded costs to Mr. Kamran, payable by Mr. Andersson alone, fixed at $17,000.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by Mr. Andersson and noting that the defendants' settlement offer was technically deficient and lacked clarity, thus not engaging the presumptive consequences of Rule 49.10.

The court also considered the broader context of the litigation and the inflammatory nature of some allegations made by Mr. Kamran.

The defendant brought a motion to remove Siskinds LLP as counsel of record for the plaintiffs, citing conflict of interest and 'lawyer as witness' concerns.

The dispute involved an internal corporate struggle over share ownership and director status in LEO Canada Inc. Siskinds LLP had acted as corporate counsel during the events giving rise to the dispute and was now acting as litigation counsel for both the corporation and one of the disputing shareholders.

The court found significant conflict of interest concerns, noting that lawyers from the firm were likely to be necessary witnesses regarding the preparation and execution of contested corporate documents.

The court ordered the removal of Siskinds LLP, directed that the corporation and the individual plaintiff obtain separate representation, and established a procedure for documentary disclosure.