James Norton

The plaintiff sought leave to enforce a consent judgment obtained following a settlement agreement arising from a large employee fraud.

The moving party argued that the defendant had materially breached the settlement agreement by failing to disclose assets, gifts, and financial transactions and by failing to account for significant proceeds obtained from resale of goods purchased through the fraud.

The court held that the consent judgment was contractually linked to the settlement agreement and therefore subject to conditions restricting enforcement against the defendant’s residence unless a material breach occurred.

The court found multiple material breaches, including undisclosed loans, gifts, assets, and evasive disclosure regarding hundreds of thousands of dollars in proceeds.

The breaches removed the contractual protection against execution.

Leave was granted nunc pro tunc for issuance of a writ of seizure and sale.

The appellant appealed a Master's order requiring her to post $40,000 in security for costs in her solicitor's negligence action.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to strike a ground of appeal as an impermissible collateral attack on a prior unappealed order, which the court granted.

On the main appeal, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the Master's findings that the appellant was ordinarily resident outside Ontario and had failed to establish impecuniosity with robust particularity.

The court held the Master correctly applied the law in assessing the merits of the action and balancing the parties' interests.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The moving party hospital sought summary judgment dismissing a medical negligence action arising from a post-surgical brain infection allegedly caused by a nurse’s failure to report purulent drainage from a patient’s incision prior to discharge.

The plaintiffs alleged the nurse negligently allowed discharge without informing the treating physician or properly documenting the observation.

The court held that the motion record permitted a full appreciation of the issues and that the circumstantial and usual-practice evidence supported the inference that the nurse had reported the drainage to the physician and complied with the applicable standard of care.

The plaintiffs failed to produce evidence contradicting the nurse’s usual practice or establishing causation between any alleged failure and the injury.

Summary judgment was therefore granted dismissing the claims and cross‑claims against the hospital.