Jacqueline A. Horvat

The plaintiff sought a declaration of beneficial ownership of residential property occupied rent-free for years, or alternatively damages, on the basis of proprietary estoppel arising from an alleged promise that the property would be left to her by will.

The court held that the evidence did not establish an unambiguous assurance intended to be taken seriously, and that any reliance on such an alleged promise was unreasonable in light of the surrounding circumstances, including later solicitor correspondence and trust documentation preserving the registered owner's control.

The court further found no detriment because the claimed repairs and improvements were ordinary incidents of occupation and were outweighed by the substantial benefit of rent-free residence.

The defendant's statutory counterclaim for wrongful registration of a certificate of pending litigation also failed because the claim to an interest in land was reasonably advanced and no actual damages were proven.

The action was dismissed, vacant possession was ordered within 90 days, and the CPL was discharged.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

He argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his Charter applications under ss. 8, 9, 10(b), and 11(b), and in failing to exclude evidence under s. 24(2).

The Superior Court of Justice found no palpable or overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings or legal analysis regarding the roadside screening demand, the appellant's waiver of his right to counsel, or the calculation of trial delay.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant estate trustee sought a declaration that the deceased's TFSA and RRIF, which designated the respondent as beneficiary, were subject to a resulting trust in favour of the estate or were the product of undue influence.

The court held that the presumption of resulting trust from Pecore does not apply to beneficiary designations on registered accounts, preferring the reasoning in Amherst Crane and Mak Estate over Calmusky.

The court found no evidence that the deceased intended the accounts to form part of his estate, nor any evidence of undue influence by the respondent.

The application was dismissed and the funds were ordered paid to the respondent.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim or dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff had previously consented to a judgment for possession following a mortgage default, and his subsequent attempts to set aside the judgment and appeal were dismissed.

The court found that the current action sought to relitigate the same issues already finally adjudicated in the prior mortgage enforcement proceedings.

The motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

Sentencing following convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference against a 15-year-old complainant after a judge-alone trial.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing objectives under the Criminal Code and the Supreme Court's guidance on child sexual offences, and rejected the offender's request for a conditional sentence as unfit.

Aggravating factors included the complainant's age, the significant emotional harm described in the victim impact statement, the offender's exploitation of the complainant's trust, and his lack of insight, remorse, and victim empathy.

Mitigating factors included youth at the time of the offences, absence of a prior record at the time, sobriety efforts, family and church support, and hardship to his business and dependants.

The court imposed 12 months' custody, 3 years' probation, conditional stays on duplicative counts under Kienapple, and ancillary SOIRA, DNA, weapons, no-contact, and child-protection orders.

The accused was stopped for speeding in a construction zone on the 401 in Chatham-Kent County.

During the traffic stop, police detected the odour of cannabis and observed what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette in the vehicle.

Police conducted a search of the vehicle and the accused under the Cannabis Control Act, 2017, and subsequently discovered a prohibited firearm, magazines, ammunition, and other items.

The accused was charged with various offences related to possession of prohibited weapons and ammunition.

The court found that the police lacked reasonable grounds to conduct the warrantless search under the Cannabis Control Act, that the detention was arbitrary, and that the accused was handcuffed without objective justification.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of the Charter violations under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

A dispute arose between a seller of an endodontics practice and the proposed purchaser regarding the sale of the practice.

The parties executed a Letter of Intent that contained conditions precedent to closing, including the negotiation of a new lease on terms satisfactory to the purchaser and the purchaser's satisfaction with due diligence investigations.

The purchaser terminated the Letter of Intent after learning of key employee departures and difficulties in finalizing the lease agreement.

The seller alleged breach of good faith and honest performance.

The court found no breach, holding that the purchaser exercised his contractual discretion reasonably and in good faith, and was entitled to terminate the transaction when conditions precedent were not met.

The defendant, Thompson Global Group Ltd., brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and default judgment dated November 26, 2024, in a construction lien action.

The plaintiff, ZMAC Plumbing Inc., had registered a construction lien and obtained a default judgment after the defendant failed to respond to the statement of claim.

The defendant argued it did not receive the statement of claim because it had moved its business address but failed to update its registered address with Corporations Canada.

The court found the defendant had a plausible excuse for the default, acted promptly upon learning of the judgment, had an arguable defence on the merits regarding incomplete work and inferior materials, and that the interests of justice favored setting aside the default.

The court granted the motion and ordered the defendant to file its statement of defence within twenty days.

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the motion, but the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs thrown away in the amount of $3,500.00 all-inclusive.

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a second independent medical examination (IME) with a replacement expert.

The defendants' initial expert, Dr. Steven M. Dilkas, conducted an IME on June 26, 2024, but subsequently ceased communicating with the defendants and failed to deliver any report or draft report.

After numerous unsuccessful attempts to obtain the report from Dr. Dilkas between August 2024 and January 2025, the defendants retained a replacement expert, Dr. Richard Kaminker, and sought a second IME.

The plaintiff refused consent.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendants had adduced sufficient evidence of Dr. Dilkas's non-responsiveness and that the request for a second IME was legitimate and necessary.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendants must first pursue a Rule 33.06 motion to compel Dr. Dilkas's report, finding such a requirement would be inefficient and contrary to principles of proportionality.

The court ordered the plaintiff to attend the second IME with Dr. Kaminker and directed the defendants to reimburse all incidental expenses.

This endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following a dispute over jointly held bank accounts between the estate trustees of Christine Black and her brother, Bruce Albert Chamberlain.

The court found that the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust and that the accounts formed part of the estate.

The applicants sought full indemnity costs, while the respondent argued that all costs should be paid from the estate.

The court awarded the applicants partial indemnity costs, payable personally by the respondent, and declined to order any costs payable from the estate.

This decision concerns the interpretation of a contingency fee retainer agreement between Aylmer Meat Packers Inc. and Richard Walter Clare (the "Client") and their former law firm, Harrison Pensa LLP ("HP").

The court found that HP was not entitled to a contingency fee on a judgment obtained by the Client on appeal after new counsel was retained.

The agreement only entitled HP to a contingency fee on damages recovered prior to or at trial.

The court also rejected HP’s claim for compensation under quantum meruit, holding that the enforceable agreement governed the parties’ rights and obligations.

The applicant, Ann Marie Alexander Bedell, sought interim sole decision-making responsibility for the children and child support based on imputed income to the respondent, Camiel Wayne Bedell.

The court declined to grant sole decision-making responsibility, finding no evidence that joint decision-making was not in the children's best interests.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on his prior earning history, finding he was intentionally under-employed and that his decision to return to school was not a reasonable educational need in the circumstances.

Interim child support was ordered based on an imputed income of $137,610 per annum.

The court dismissed Farm Credit Canada's application for the appointment of a receiver over the assets of Kapital Produce Ltd. and related companies.

The court found that, although there were alleged events of default under the credit agreement, most were cured within the required period and did not constitute actionable defaults.

The court held that the appointment of a receiver was not just or convenient in the circumstances, given the significant value of the security held by FCC, the lack of evidence of irreparable harm or risk to the assets, and the Debtors' ongoing efforts to resolve the indebtedness.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend the statement of claim to correct the name of the plaintiff.

The defendant opposed, arguing prejudice and limitation period issues.

The court found that only two invoices were issued by the correct corporate entity, but those claims were out of time and duplicate.

The plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice from the loss of a limitation defence.

The motion to amend was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The court considered a motion to strike all claims against Patricia France, the former President of St. Clair College, in an action by Waseem Habash for breach of contract, defamation, injurious falsehood, and related torts.

The court partially granted the motion, striking only the claim for intentional interference with contractual and/or economic relations, but granted leave to amend the claim for inducing breach of contract.

The court found that the pleadings for defamation and injurious falsehood were sufficient to proceed, as was the claim for inducing breach of contract (subject to amendment), and that there was an arguable basis for personal liability against Ms. France.

The court determined whether certain joint accounts held by the deceased, Christine Black, and her brother, Bruce Albert Chamberlain, were assets of the estate or a gift to Bruce.

The court found that Bruce failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust and did not establish that the joint accounts were a valid gift.

The funds in the joint accounts were therefore declared assets of the estate for distribution to the residual beneficiaries.

The decision reviews the evidence, the parties' positions, and the applicable legal principles, including the need for corroboration under the Evidence Act and the requirements for establishing a gift of joint account funds.

This decision concerns the allocation of costs following the settlement of a multi-party action arising from a 2011 boating accident.

The only remaining issue was the amount of costs payable to the plaintiffs.

The court awarded $146,091.74 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding this amount fair and reasonable.

The court declined to award a premium or substantial indemnity costs, finding no basis for such an award in the circumstances, and emphasized the importance of reasonableness and the discretion of the court in costs matters.

The applicant sought the immediate return of the parties' four youngest children to Windsor, Ontario, after the respondent relocated them to Calgary, Alberta.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking an interim order to permit the relocation and for sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the children.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion and granted the respondent's requests, finding it in the children's best interests to remain in Calgary due to a documented history of family violence by the applicant.