James Melville Longstreet

The plaintiff alleged battery by the defendant, seeking $250,000 in damages for personal injuries.

The defendant denied the assault and counterclaimed for $200,000, alleging malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and assault.

The court found the defendant committed battery by forcefully taking a paper from the plaintiff, awarding nominal non-pecuniary damages of $750.00.

The plaintiff's claims for special and punitive damages were dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The defendant's counterclaims were also dismissed, as the torts were not established or lacked supporting evidence.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation concerning latent defects (water infiltration and foundation issues) in a property they purchased.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to prove the defendant's knowledge of the latent defects, which is a prerequisite for vendor liability.

The negligent misrepresentation claim was dismissed due to an "entire agreement" clause in the agreement of purchase and sale, which precluded reliance on pre-contractual representations.

Although finding no liability, the court assessed damages, noting the plaintiffs' failure to mitigate significantly increased the remediation costs.

The defendant brought a motion to extend the time to serve and file an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision that struck its defence and awarded damages to the plaintiff.

The defendant had repeatedly failed to comply with court orders, failed to pay costs, and failed to attend trial with its witness.

Applying the Laczko factors, the Divisional Court found that while the defendant intended to appeal and explained the delay, the appeal lacked merit and the plaintiff would suffer prejudice.

The motion to extend time was dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion for an order naming her the owner of a jointly owned embryo, seeking its implantation after an acrimonious divorce.

The applicant opposed, preferring donation.

The court held that the dispute was governed by valid contracts.

The Ontario contract stipulated that the patient's (respondent's) wishes were to be respected in the event of separation.

While a Georgia contract indicated court determination in divorce, the court prioritized the Ontario contract's specific provision.

The motion was granted, allowing the respondent to use the embryo, and the applicant was awarded reimbursement for his financial interest in half of the embryo.

The plaintiff landlord leased a commercial property to the defendant tenant.

The tenant placed excessive landfill on the property, violating conservation authority regulations.

The landlord terminated the lease and seized the tenant's entire fleet of commercial vehicles, holding them for over four years as security for future remediation costs.

The court found the landlord's distraint was illegal and constituted conversion, as a landlord cannot both terminate a lease and distrain goods, nor can they distrain for non-rent damages.

The landlord was awarded damages for the remediation and site plan costs, while the tenant was awarded damages for the converted chattels and lost income.

After set-off, the tenant was granted a net judgment of $106,771.

The parties sought clarification of a prior order that found an enforceable settlement agreement between them, specifically regarding whether a waiver of child support applied to retroactive or ongoing support.

The court determined that because the prior order incorporating the settlement terms had already been signed and entered, the judge was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to interpret the agreement's contents or the parties' intentions.

Former business associates disputed financial obligations arising from a commercial lease, alleged tax arrears, a purported deposit toward a contemplated property purchase, and a counterclaim for vehicle repair work.

The court found the tenant was responsible for property taxes but concluded that a portion of the increased monthly payments was intended to cover ongoing tax obligations, leaving only a small balance outstanding.

The tenant failed to prove that the deposit exceeded the amount admitted by the landlord.

The counterclaim for historic vehicle repair work was dismissed on the merits despite the absence of a pleaded limitations defence.

After set‑off of the parties’ obligations, judgment was granted in favour of the defendant for the balance.

In a family law motion relating to property equalization, the moving party sought an order requiring the responding party to obtain a formal valuation of her shares in a limited partnership as of the valuation date.

The responding party asserted the shares had nominal value and relied on an email from a company officer and financial statements showing operational losses.

The court held that the party asserting the value of an asset bears the primary onus of establishing that value with credible evidence.

The evidence provided was insufficient to meet that burden, as there was no evidence of the qualifications of the person offering the opinion or the basis of the valuation.

The court ordered the responding party to obtain an independent formal valuation at her own expense.

The defendants in an elder abuse and property dispute action brought a third-party claim against the plaintiffs' children, alleging they had maliciously meddled in the family relationship and turned the plaintiffs against the defendants.

The third parties moved to strike the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, holding that the law of torts does not regulate family interactions or compensate for bruised feelings, and noted that the tort of alienation of affection was abolished in Ontario in 1978.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its action against the respondent.

The trial judge found no breach of contract, as the appellant purchased the property on an 'as is where is' basis and the respondent fulfilled his obligation to deliver two reports without promising the property was contamination-free.

The trial judge also found no negligent misrepresentation, as there was no duty of care owed.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge's conclusions and dismissed the appeal.