James L. McDonald

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by Mary McInnis, acting in person, for an extension of time to perfect her appeal in estate litigation, and a cross-motion by Sharon Hartin to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The court found that transcripts were required for the appeal and that the perfection deadline had not yet begun, rendering the extension motion moot.

The court declined to dismiss the appeal for delay, citing the appellant’s self-represented status, confusion over the rules, and lack of prejudice to the respondent.

The court imposed a deadline for the appellant to order transcripts or seek relief, failing which the respondent may move for dismissal for delay.

The applicant, Sharon Hartin, objected to the accounts of the respondent, Mary McInnis, in her capacities as attorney for property and estate trustee of Anna Evelyn Hartin's estate.

The applicant alleged undue influence, improper transfers, failure to keep proper records, and breach of court orders.

The court found a presumption of undue influence arose due to the deceased's dependency on the respondent, which the respondent largely failed to rebut.

The court also found the respondent acted as attorney for property and failed to keep adequate records.

The court ordered the respondent to reimburse the estate $127,167.70, revoked her Certificate of Appointment as Estate Trustee, and denied her compensation.

This decision concerns the approval of a $30 million settlement in a class action alleging that major junior hockey players were employees entitled to minimum wage and other benefits.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, given the high litigation risks and uncertain legal landscape.

The court also approved Class Counsel's fees but declined to approve honoraria for the representative plaintiffs, reiterating that such awards should be rare and reserved for exceptional contributions.

The plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from terminating their franchise agreement.

The court noted that the agreement was set to expire in April 2024 with no automatic renewal clause.

Finding that an injunction would unfairly extend the agreement indefinitely pending litigation, and that the plaintiff could seek monetary damages, the court dismissed the motion.

The Municipality of Mississippi Mills brought an application seeking a declaration that Steven Maynard is a vexatious litigant under ss. 140(1)(a) & (b) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

C.43, due to his persistent and groundless court proceedings and vexatious conduct.

The Municipality sought orders to stay pending actions and prevent further proceedings without leave.

Maynard denied his actions were vexatious, claiming to act as a responsible citizen ensuring municipal compliance with planning laws.

The court granted the application, finding Maynard to be a vexatious litigant, and imposed orders to stay existing proceedings and require leave for future actions, with a specific exclusion for a slip-and-fall small claims case.

The appellant appealed two inspection orders issued by the Smith Falls Fire Department regarding multiple alleged Fire Code violations at a large, multi-building complex.

The parties settled most issues, leaving seven items for the Fire Safety Commission to determine.

The Commission confirmed the orders requiring a fire separation for the theatrical stage, repairs to ensure certain fire separation doors close and latch, the maintenance of standpipe testing records, and the installation of exit signage.

The Commission rescinded the orders regarding two sets of doors, finding they were not required fire separations because they did not open onto public corridors or were not originally built as fire separations.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that awarded damages and other relief to the respondents in a land development dispute.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's reasons lacked sufficient analysis for various causes of action, including fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and duty of honest performance.

The appellate court also identified factual findings that were not supported by the evidence, particularly concerning drainage responsibilities.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal noted problematic judicial conduct during the trial, including an ill-advised bifurcation of the trial and comments that suggested a lack of impartiality.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment below was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellants appealed an associate judge's order dismissing their action for delay at a status hearing under Rule 48.14.

The delay was primarily caused by the appellants' trial counsel inadvertently missing the mandatory mediation requirement, which prevented the filing of the trial record before the five-year deadline.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the associate judge committed palpable and overriding error by treating the missed mediation as a mere technical misstep and failing to consider the overall justice of the case, especially given the lack of prejudice to the respondents and the fact that the action was brought to enforce a $12,000,000 default judgment.

The appellant, a unionized employee of the Ontario Public Service, commenced a civil action against her employer and union alleging workplace discrimination and harassment.

The motion judge dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the essential character of the dispute arose from the collective agreement and was therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator or the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

On appeal, the appellant argued that section 46.1 of the Human Rights Code granted the court concurrent jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that section 46.1 does not override the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrators where the dispute arises from a collective agreement and no independent civil wrong is pleaded.

The representative plaintiffs in three related class actions concerning the employment status of major junior hockey players sought approval of a $30 million settlement.

The court declined to approve the settlement because of an eleventh-hour objection raising concerns that the standard form release in the settlement agreement might bar class members from pursuing other existing class actions against the defendants for concussions, sexual abuse, and anti-competitive behaviour.

The court found that the release needed to be renegotiated to ensure it did not prejudice class members' rights in those other actions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) to extend the deadline for setting the action down for trial.

The action, commenced in 2014 to enforce a 2013 default judgment, had seen no steps taken by the plaintiffs for 30 months between 2016 and 2019.

Applying the conjunctive test for delay, the Master found that while the defendants would not suffer significant prejudice, the plaintiffs failed to provide an adequate explanation for the lengthy delay.

The action was dismissed for delay.

The plaintiff, a unionized employee, commenced a civil action against her employer (the Crown) and her union (AMAPCEO) alleging discrimination and harassment arising from her employment.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of grievance arbitration or the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) due to the collective agreement.

The court granted the motion, holding that the essential character of the dispute arose entirely from the employment relationship governed by the collective agreement, and the plaintiff's claims did not present an independent civil wrong to "piggyback" human rights claims in court.

The court affirmed that the HRTO remains an available forum for the plaintiff's human rights complaints.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a permanent injunction and damages of $50,000, alleging an actionable nuisance caused by the defendants' commercial equipment (a compressor and coffee roaster flue) emitting noise, smell, smoke, and heat.

The defendants asserted that summary judgment should be granted in their favour, dismissing the action.

The court found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding both the existence of an actionable nuisance and the appropriate remedy, given conflicting evidence from witnesses and experts.

The court emphasized that summary judgment is a blunt tool for balancing interests, especially when permanent injunctive relief is claimed, and that a full appreciation of evidence from a trial is necessary for a fair and just adjudication.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the defendants' request for "boomerang summary judgment" was also declined due to procedural unfairness.

Several trade unions and the Canadian Labour Congress brought motions for leave to intervene as added parties or as friends of the court in an action challenging the constitution of the Amalgamated Transit Union.

The moving parties argued they had an interest in the proceeding because their own constitutions contained similar provisions and they could be adversely affected by the precedent.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that an interest based solely on the potential precedential effect of a decision is insufficient for intervention as an added party under Rule 13.01.

The court also denied leave to intervene as friends of the court under Rule 13.02, concluding that the proposed interveners' submissions would largely duplicate the arguments of the defendant union and would not provide a materially different perspective.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment on their claims, grounded in contract and misrepresentation regarding "resale on-site guarantees" for their park model trailers, and dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim for business interference, breach of confidence, and conversion.

The court declined to grant summary judgment, finding that there were multiple triable issues and significant evidentiary gaps.

These gaps included the absence of key witness testimony from Brett Coleman, concerns about the authenticity of original documents, and insufficient evidence for a confident assessment of damages for both the main action and the counterclaim.

The court invited the parties to confer on a more efficient path forward, possibly a tailored trial procedure.

The representative plaintiff in a class action regarding pension benefits for employees transferred to Community Care Access Centres moved for settlement approval, fee approval, and an amendment to the class definition.

The plaintiff alleged the government breached a 'no loss' commitment regarding pension benefits.

The court approved the amendment to the class definition to include certain union members.

The court also approved the settlement of $752,500, providing $2,500 per class member, finding it fair and reasonable given the significant litigation risks, including a limitation period defence.

Class counsel fees up to $75,000 were also approved.

The Association grieved the termination of the Complainant's employment at the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

Based on the submissions of the parties, the Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the Complainant be reinstated to employment effective November 14, 2014.

The Board further ordered the OIPRD to redact the Complainant's name to reflect 'CSP' in a specific decision posted on its website.

The plaintiff appealed a motion judge's refusal to approve a class action settlement regarding alleged copyright infringement by the defendant's online legal database.

Following Supreme Court of Canada decisions that significantly enhanced the defendant's fair dealing defence, the parties agreed to a settlement including a cy-près payment and a non-exclusive licence from class members.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and approved the settlement, finding the motion judge erred in characterizing the licence as a property right and in elevating the standard for settlement approval by introducing 'institutional fairness' as a new factor.

A non-profit corporation operating a residence for families of children receiving medical treatment sought exemption from municipal property taxation under s. 3(1)11 of the Assessment Act.

The respondents disputed that the organization provided the “care of children” required by the statutory exemption.

The court held that although the organization did not directly provide childcare, its primary function constituted a “house of refuge” by offering shelter and support to families experiencing hardship while their children received medical treatment.

Interpreting the statutory language in its ordinary meaning and legislative context, the court concluded the facility provided refuge from distress and therefore qualified for the exemption.

The application for tax exemption was granted.

Following an earlier ruling on a motion, the court addressed a dispute concerning the allocation of agreed costs.

The parties agreed that $9,000 in costs would be payable to two respondents, but the applicants argued that additional respondents should share liability for those costs.

The court found that the additional respondents had been present only on a watching brief and were not part of the bifurcated application.

The court rejected the applicants’ position and ordered that those respondents should not share liability.

Instead, the applicants were ordered to pay additional costs to those respondents for having to participate in the costs submissions.