James Macdonald

The plaintiff sought leave to amend his statement of claim to add the defendant's professional liability insurer as a defendant.

The plaintiff sought a declaration that his claim and another client's claim against the defendant constituted separate claims under the insurance policy, thereby maximizing available coverage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendment was impossible of success because the coverage issue could not be determined until the underlying actions were finally decided, as previously held in a related application.

The plaintiffs, purchasers of pre-construction homes, sued the developer, its directors, its lender, and the subsequent purchaser of the development after their agreements of purchase and sale were terminated and their deposits retained.

Several groups of defendants brought motions to strike the statements of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) and Rule 25.11.

The court found the pleadings to be deficient, confusing, and lacking material facts.

Many claims, including conspiracy, interference with economic relations, and inducing breach of contract, were struck with leave to amend.

Claims for unjust enrichment and claims against the individual directors of the subsequent purchaser were struck without leave to amend.

Claims against the former directors of the developer under the Assignments and Preferences Act and for oppression were allowed to proceed.

The applicant sought to confirm the boundary between his property and the objector's property under the Boundaries Act.

The applicant's surveyor relied on the deed distance, while the objector's surveyor relied on an old fence line and garage as evidence of the original boundary.

The Deputy Director of Titles rejected the applicant's survey, applying the hierarchy of evidence to find that the long-standing fence and garage were the best evidence of the original boundary location.

The objection was allowed, and the boundary was confirmed in accordance with the objector's position.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The applicant sought to be reinstated as a member and director of a not-for-profit religious corporation after being removed for allegedly misappropriating donation funds.

The respondents terminated his membership following an investigation and video surveillance.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the respondents had the authority to terminate the membership under the corporate by-laws and acted with procedural fairness.

Furthermore, relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the membership decisions of a religious organization absent an underlying legal right.

The plaintiffs brought an action claiming ownership of a strip of the defendants' land through adverse possession.

The dispute arose after the defendants demanded the plaintiffs move their fence, asserting it was on the defendants' property.

The court found that a chain link fence had existed on the defendants' property for over ten years prior to the property's conversion to Land Titles, and that previous owners of both properties operated under a mutual mistake that the fence marked the boundary.

The court concluded the plaintiffs established open, notorious, and continuous adverse possession for the requisite ten-year period and granted a declaration of ownership, along with nominal damages.

The tenant appealed an Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal order terminating her tenancy and evicting her for impairing safety and causing property damage.

The tenant argued the Tribunal erred in law by misinterpreting the landlord's duty to accommodate her disability to the point of undue hardship.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly identified the legal obligations and that what constitutes reasonable accommodation is a question of fact, not law.