James A. Ramsay

The plaintiff sued for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale, alleging the defendants acted in bad faith by relying on a solicitor approval condition to annul the deal.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a ruling that the defendants impliedly waived solicitor-client privilege by pleading they acted in good faith on their solicitor's advice.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants did not base their defence on their state of mind, but merely answered the bad faith claim, and that the solicitor approval clause gave them an absolute right to cancel without waiving privilege over the solicitor's reasons.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for breach of contract, claiming a management fee for supervising a construction project at the defendants' home.

The defendants moved for an order requiring the plaintiff to serve a further and better affidavit of documents, seeking timesheets, invoices, and communications related to the project and other properties.

The court granted the motion, finding the requested documents relevant to determining the actual project cost, the adequacy of the plaintiff's management, and the quantum meruit claim.

The court also held that ordering disclosure was proportionate to the issues and amount involved.

The applicant, a former teacher whose certificate was retroactively revoked due to a prior finding of professional misconduct involving sexual abuse, applied for reinstatement.

The Registrar determined the application was premature, interpreting the five-year waiting period under subsection 33(4.1) of the Act as starting from the date of the deemed revocation rather than the date of the original discipline order.

The Divisional Court found the Registrar's interpretation unreasonable, as it ignored the clear statutory language and context, and quashed the decision, ordering the Registrar to refer the reinstatement application to the discipline committee.

The respondent mother brought a motion for third-party production of the applicant father's complete employment file from the Canada Border Services Agency.

The father had brought a motion to change child support, claiming his income had decreased after resigning from the CBSA.

The mother sought the file to determine if he resigned to avoid termination for cause, which she argued would relate to intentional underemployment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the employment file was not relevant to explaining why the father left a higher-paying job for a lower-paying one.

The employer appealed a decision finding its employment contract's termination clause void for breaching the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The application judge had awarded the employee ten months' common law notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the 'for cause' provision illegally contracted out of the ESA by applying a common law 'just cause' standard rather than the statutory 'wilful misconduct' standard.

The Court also found no error in the application judge's assessment of the ten-month notice period, which appropriately considered the Bardal factors and the economic uncertainty at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The self-represented appellant, a commercial tenant, appealed a trial judge's assessment of damages following a wrongful eviction that destroyed his dry-cleaning business.

The trial judge had awarded $16,000, comprising lost income, loss of equipment, and aggravated damages.

The appellant argued the award was too low, while the respondent landlord cross-appealed, arguing the awards were unjustified.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the principles of contract damages and that the awards were supported by the limited evidence presented at trial.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of P.W. Nicholson J. and a subsequent costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of R.F. Macleod J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,229.03.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 31, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $2,500.

The applicant mother sought the return of her 16-year-old child, whom the respondent father had taken to Quebec in violation of previous court orders.

The respondent failed to appear at the trial.

The court granted the applicant sole parenting time and decision-making responsibility, ordered the immediate return of the child to Ontario with police assistance if necessary, and ordered the respondent to pay child support of $406 per month based on an imputed income of $44,000.

The plaintiff accountant joined the defendant accounting firm under an unwritten resource-sharing or partnership arrangement.

After the relationship broke down, the plaintiff sued for unpaid compensation and the return of a capital contribution, while the defendants counterclaimed for misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and defamation.

The court found an implied agreement for compensation based on the parties' conduct and awarded the plaintiff $71,223 for unpaid 2014 compensation plus the return of her $40,000 capital contribution.

However, the court also found that the plaintiff defamed the defendants by calling them 'crooks' to a client, awarding the defendants $30,000 on their counterclaim.

The plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic hysterectomy performed by the defendant gynaecologist, during which her colon was perforated, requiring subsequent reconstructive surgery.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action alleging the defendant failed to obtain informed consent, failed to review prior operative reports, lacked the skill to perform the surgery given her anatomy, and negligently caused the perforation.

The court dismissed the action, finding the defendant met the standard of care in his pre-operative advice and surgical technique, and that the bowel injury was a known complication likely caused by abnormal anatomy rather than negligence.

The defendants appealed the certification of a class action claiming intrusion upon seclusion following a massive data breach by third-party hackers.

The certification judge had allowed the claim to proceed, finding it was not plain and obvious that the novel claim would fail.

The Divisional Court majority allowed the appeal and set aside the certification of the intrusion upon seclusion claim, holding that the tort requires an actual intrusion by the defendant, not merely a failure to prevent an intrusion by others.

The plaintiffs' economic interests were adequately protected by the tort of negligence.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for an interim order to change the child's care and custody pending a status review application.

The child had been placed with the paternal grandparents under a final order.

The Society sought to return the child to the mother under supervision.

The court found that the mother was not yet ready for unsupervised care and that the grandparents and mother had recently agreed to a comprehensive joint parenting plan through mediation.

The court held that the child's best interests did not require a temporary change in placement and dismissed the motion.

The defendant estate moved for summary judgment in a motor vehicle accident claim, arguing that the deceased owner could not have been driving the offending vehicle and had not consented to anyone else possessing it.

The plaintiff's insurer opposed the motion, presenting hearsay evidence that the owner's son had previously driven the car and may have had implied consent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a trial was necessary to assess the credibility of witnesses and determine whether the driver had possession of the vehicle with the owner's consent.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision finding it breached the collective agreement by permitting a third-party hotel to use non-union workers for stage events.

The employer argued the arbitrator unreasonably extended the union's jurisdiction beyond theatrical events and misconstrued the prohibition on contracting out.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement, including the use of extrinsic evidence and the broad interpretation of the word 'permit', was internally coherent, logical, and reasonable.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $5,000 payable forthwith to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Conlan J. dated November 27, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $5,000.

The moving party, the defendant, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Koehnen J. dated March 1, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $5,000.