James Patrick McReynolds

During a family law proceeding, a non-party corporation sought clarification regarding whether earlier disclosure and examination orders were stayed pending a forthcoming motion to set them aside.

The court considered whether it retained jurisdiction to grant or clarify a stay despite an appeal having been initiated, examining conflicting authorities interpreting Rule 63.02.

Adopting the view that the amended rule grants concurrent jurisdiction to both the trial court and the appeal court to grant a stay, the court held it retained jurisdiction.

Applying a balance of convenience analysis, the court found that requiring the non-party to comply with onerous disclosure obligations before the motion was determined would cause disproportionate prejudice.

The court ordered a stay of the prior orders until the motion to set them aside or change them is decided.

An automobile insurer commenced an action alleging that medical assessment centres and their principals conspired to submit fraudulent statutory accident benefits claims and supporting documentation, causing the insurer to pay over $500,000 in benefits.

The defendants moved under rule 21.01(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the fresh as amended statement of claim for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy were adequately pleaded and provided sufficient particulars.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the conspiracy claim merged with the tort claims at the pleadings stage, holding that the merger doctrine should not be used to strike a conspiracy claim before trial.

The only portion struck was the allegation that the defendants breached the Criminal Code, which was held to be scandalous in a civil pleading.

The appellant corporation appealed an order requiring moneys to be paid into court in the context of matrimonial proceedings.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, finding the order was interlocutory because it did not finally determine the appellant's interest in the funds.

The appellant was granted an extension of time to seek leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to strike the plaintiffs' pleadings.

They argued the motion judge erred by failing to apply the doctrine of merger to strike the conspiracy claims and by applying the wrong test to the fraudulent misrepresentation claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the motion judge correctly declined to apply the doctrine of merger at the pleadings stage and correctly applied the test for pleading fraud.

Following a Rule 21 motion to strike portions of a pleading, the court addressed the issue of costs after the motion produced mixed results.

The defendants achieved partial success but most of the impugned amended statement of claim survived.

The court found the defendants’ decision to pursue the motion against the amended pleading was not unreasonable and rejected arguments that the motion constituted an abuse of process or was barred by res judicata.

Given the divided success and the procedural context in which the claim had been amended in response to the motion, the court exercised its discretion to decline awarding costs to either party.

The defendants brought a motion under rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of the statement of claim alleging conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and unjust enrichment arising from allegedly false insurance assessment claims.

The court applied the “plain and obvious” test for striking pleadings and held that the conspiracy claim was redundant under the merger doctrine where the same damages were claimed for fraudulent misrepresentation.

Claims against the individual defendants were also struck due to insufficient pleaded facts establishing personal tortious conduct separate from the corporate defendants.

However, the court found the pleadings sufficiently disclosed causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and unjust enrichment when read generously.

Leave was granted to amend the statement of claim.

The defendants appealed a master's order dismissing their motion to compel answers to a demand for particulars in an action alleging fraud and misrepresentation.

The motion had been dismissed because the defendants did not file an affidavit stating that the requested particulars were necessary to plead.

The court held that under Rule 25.06(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, full particulars are mandatory where fraud is alleged and affidavit evidence from the moving party is not required to obtain them.

The court further held that the plaintiffs’ affidavit of documents and production of extensive documentation did not sufficiently identify the specific fraudulent acts alleged.

The appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs were ordered to provide detailed particulars of each alleged fraud.

The moving defendants brought a motion to strike out the plaintiff insurers' claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to submit fraudulent medical treatment and assessment claims.

The court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded the material facts for fraudulent misrepresentation against the individual defendants, who could be held personally liable for tortious acts.

The court also declined to strike the conspiracy claims, holding that the applicability of the merger doctrine should be determined at trial and that the claims were properly based on unlawful acts under the Insurance Act and Criminal Code.

The motion was dismissed, though two plaintiffs were ordered to amend their pleadings to specify special damages for conspiracy.

The applicant sought relief from forfeiture after its month‑to‑month commercial tenancy at the Ontario Food Terminal was terminated.

The tenant argued that the landlord lacked cause or a legitimate business reason for termination and that the notice failed to comply with the Commercial Tenancies Act.

The court held that the lease expressly permitted termination by either party on 30 days’ written notice and that the tenancy was properly terminated in accordance with both the agreement and the statute.

The court rejected the argument that the Ontario Food Terminal Board required cause or a legitimate business justification to exercise its contractual termination right.

Relief from forfeiture was therefore unavailable because the lease had been terminated pursuant to its terms rather than forfeited for breach.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that declined to strike out claims of conspiracy and negligence against individual defendants.

The court found that the proposed appeal did not meet the test under Rule 62.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as there were no conflicting decisions and the discrete pleading issues did not transcend the interests of the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order refusing a discretionary remedy regarding the carriage of a bankruptcy proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the appellant's conduct, specifically her decision to assume the role of a participating creditor, warranted the refusal of the requested order.

The Court noted the respondent's undertaking to pursue the claim forcefully and cooperatively.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding a commercial tenancy dispute.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the relationship was not a strict tenancy at will and that an accounting was appropriate due to premature termination.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred by affording the respondents double recovery—awarding full compensation for renovations while also granting a rent-free period.

The judgment was varied to require the respondents to pay reasonable rent and utilities for the initial period, reducing the amount payable by the appellants by $8,822.57.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict finding no negligence on the part of an unidentified customer or the respondent grocery store after an incident in an express aisle.

The appellants also argued the store had a duty to investigate the accident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was open to the jury to find no negligence by either party.

The Court further held that the store's duty to keep its premises reasonably safe did not extend to an obligation to investigate the accident.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment, arguing the motion judge erred in refusing an adjournment to examine a non-party and in finding no genuine issue for trial regarding repayment and forgery of a promissory note.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly exercised his discretion to refuse the adjournment due to the appellant's lack of due diligence.

The Court also held that the appellant's forgery claim could not raise a triable issue because he had explicitly admitted signing the note in his statement of defence, and no motion to withdraw the admission under Rule 51.05 had been brought.

The appellant appealed an order finding that purported Minutes of Settlement were unenforceable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the settlement lacked material and fundamental terms, such as provisions regarding second mortgages and rights of first refusal.

Furthermore, the Court found that even if an agreement existed, the appellant repudiated it through his conduct, including failing to communicate, execute documents, or maintain the property.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a full indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for unpaid invoices based on personal guarantees.

The appellant argued the respondent improperly split its claims to stay within the Small Claims Court monetary limit and that the guarantees were unenforceable because no prior written demand was made.

The Divisional Court held that the claims were not improperly split as they were based on separate guarantees for different corporate entities.

However, the court found that a formal demand for payment was a condition precedent to bringing an action on a collateral debt (guarantee).

Since no demand was made, the actions were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $143,755 plus costs and 18% interest for an unpaid account.

The appellant argued it was owed a $30,000 credit and that rebates should have been processed despite the overdue account.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence strongly supported the trial judge's conclusions that the appellant was in default, the respondent was entitled to terminate the agreement, and the applicable interest rate was 18%.

Following a successful appeal granting summary judgment on liability and directing an assessment of damages, the appellant sought costs on a full indemnity basis pursuant to a lease provision.

The respondents argued that costs should be reserved to the assessment judge, as the true magnitude of the appellant's victory would only be known once damages were assessed.

The Divisional Court agreed with the respondents and ordered that the costs of the appeal and the motion for leave be in the discretion of the judge hearing the assessment of damages.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision declining to grant summary judgment against the respondent tenants for breach of a commercial lease.

The tenants had raised defences based on alleged prior representations and a non-competition clause.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that an 'entire agreement' clause precluded reliance on prior representations, and that the non-competition clause only applied if the tenant was not in default.

As the tenants were in arrears before the competing lease was signed, the defences and counterclaim failed.

Summary judgment was granted on liability, with damages to be assessed.