James W. Sloan

The plaintiff, a vulnerable widow with limited financial knowledge, sued the defendant for civil fraud after losing $250,000 USD of her life insurance proceeds in speculative options trading through the defendant's account.

The defendant, a computer-literate individual with investment knowledge, had promised the plaintiff's dying husband he would look after her and her children.

The court found the defendant committed civil fraud by taking advantage of the plaintiff's vulnerability and making reckless trades, despite his claims that the plaintiff directed the trades.

The court awarded compensatory damages of $192,000 USD and punitive damages of $25,000 CAD.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis of $186,101.56 or partial indemnity basis of $122,951.98 following her substantial success at a family law trial.

The court noted the respondent's unreasonable positions and failure to make or respond to offers to settle, which prolonged the litigation.

However, the court found the applicant's claimed 450 hours of lawyer time to be excessive and noted jurisdictional issues regarding costs for motions heard in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $73,410.05, inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be enforced as a support order.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay $2,915.40 to the respondent roofing company for partial roof repairs.

The appellant, who was self-represented, argued that the trial judge was biased against him, erred in admitting certain photographs, and made incorrect factual findings regarding the cause of a roof leak.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, noting that the appellant had chosen to only partially repair a roof that was in a deplorable condition.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay $2,915.40 for roof repairs.

The appellant, who was self-represented, argued that the trial judge was biased against him, erred in admitting certain photographs, and made incorrect factual findings regarding the cause of a roof leak.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and concluding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in her assessment of the evidence.

Following separation after a long traditional marriage with three children, the court resolved outstanding issues of spousal support, retroactive child support, and health benefit coverage after the parties settled parenting and certain financial issues.

The court imputed income of $25,000 to the applicant due to insufficient evidence of efforts to obtain employment despite capacity as a bookkeeper.

Arrears of child and spousal support were calculated based on agreed incomes and DivorceMate calculations.

The court also addressed the respondent’s unilateral removal of the applicant from his employment medical and dental plan during litigation.

Conditional orders were made requiring reinstatement to the benefit plan if possible, or alternatively payment of lump sum spousal support for dental treatment.

The moving party sought an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims and various crossclaims against a defendant business entity whose operator had not been located or served.

The third party opposed the motion, arguing that dismissal would effectively extinguish its contribution and indemnity claim because any new fourth party proceeding would likely be barred by the limitation period.

The court considered the interaction of Rules 28, 29.05, and 29.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principle in Rule 1.04 that the rules should be liberally construed to secure determination on the merits.

Although the third party had procedurally advanced its claim by crossclaim rather than fourth party claim, the court declined to eliminate what could be a potentially meritorious claim on purely procedural grounds.

The motion to dismiss the claims against the absent defendant was therefore refused.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of cocaine discovered during a strip search following a traffic stop.

Police stopped a vehicle with mismatched licence plates and briefly questioned the passenger, who voluntarily provided identification that revealed he was bound by a probation order prohibiting association with persons with criminal records.

After learning the driver had a criminal record, police arrested the accused for breach of probation and discovered a hard object during a pat‑down search, leading to a strip search at the station that revealed cocaine.

The court held that the passenger was not detained during the initial roadside questioning and that brief requests for identification and relationship to the driver did not constitute detention or an unreasonable search under ss. 8 or 9 of the Charter.

The arrest and subsequent strip search were lawful and Charter‑compliant.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The defendants moved for a stay of a civil action on the basis that the dispute fell within an arbitration clause contained in a unanimous shareholders agreement.

The plaintiffs alleged breaches of confidentiality, non‑competition, fiduciary duties, and economic relations arising after one founder left the company and formed a competing business.

The court applied s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 and the competence‑competence principle, concluding that it was at least arguable the dispute fell within the arbitration agreement.

The presence of a corporate defendant that was not a signatory and the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief did not prevent referral to arbitration.

The court stayed the action and directed that the arbitrator determine jurisdiction and the merits of the dispute.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of their solicitor’s negligence action under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied the contextual approach and considered the Reid factors, including explanation for delay, inadvertence in missing the deadline, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendant.

The delay in setting the action down for trial was attributed primarily to inadvertence arising from a medical emergency affecting counsel’s administrative assistant responsible for the office tickler system.

The court found no significant prejudice to the defendants and determined that the litigation had otherwise progressed toward trial.

In the interests of justice, the administrative dismissal was set aside and the action ordered to be set down for trial.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them liable for failing to complete grading and drainage repairs in a good and workmanlike manner prior to the closing of a residential real estate transaction.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding on liability, noting that the basement flooded after the repairs were purportedly completed, allowing for an inference of poor workmanship under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

However, the court found that the trial judge erred in assessing damages without providing reasons for accepting a specific quote that included work beyond the scope of the required repairs.

The appeal was allowed in part, and a new trial was ordered solely on the issue of damages.

The estate trustee of a deceased joint owner brought a partition application seeking the sale of a former matrimonial home still occupied by the deceased’s former spouse.

The respondent opposed the sale, arguing that it would cause hardship due to her health conditions and financial circumstances.

The court reviewed the respondent’s financial position, housing suitability, and available alternatives, and found that the alleged hardship did not approach oppression.

The evidence showed the home was poorly suited to the respondent’s physical limitations and that sale proceeds would provide sufficient resources for alternative accommodation.

The court ordered that the property be listed for sale and directed that the net proceeds be held in trust pending agreement or further order.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence obtained from a judicially authorized search of his iPhone following his arrest for break and enter, firearm, and drug trafficking offences.

He argued the warrant lacked sufficient evidentiary basis and authorized an overly broad search contrary to s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Garofoli standard of review, the court examined whether the issuing justice could have granted the authorization based on the information to obtain.

The court held that the ITO provided reasonable grounds to believe the phone would contain evidence related to planning and execution of the offence.

The warrant was appropriately limited to specified categories of data and the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

A litigation funding company sued a personal injury lawyer and his firm to recover amounts advanced under several loan agreements used to fund litigation disbursements.

The dispute concerned the meaning of “transfer of the client’s file” in the contracts and whether such transfers triggered immediate repayment obligations.

The defendants argued the term was ambiguous and relied on an alleged side agreement that loans need not be repaid where settlements were under $50,000.

The court held the contracts were clear that repayment became due when client files were transferred to new counsel and rejected the alleged side agreement as not altering the written agreements.

Judgment was granted to the lender for the outstanding balances with interest and the defendants’ counterclaim was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial decision making their two children Crown wards without access.

The appellants argued the trial judge failed to properly consider the mother's Aboriginal heritage, misinterpreted her 'flat affect', ignored positive evidence, and failed to consider less intrusive alternatives.

The appeal court dismissed all grounds, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors and properly prioritized the children's best interests, noting the parents' chronic inability to safely parent and the severe failure to thrive of one child.

The court also strongly criticized the systemic delays in the child protection proceedings, noting the children had been in foster care for over four years.

In a bifurcated civil action where liability had already been determined in favour of the plaintiff and damages were left for later adjudication, the plaintiff moved to dismiss or stay the defendant's summary judgment motion on damages.

The court held that an order directing a trial of an issue does not bar either party from later seeking summary judgment on that issue.

Relying on the modern approach to summary judgment endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada, the court rejected a formalistic interpretation that would unnecessarily force parties to trial.

The plaintiff's motion was dismissed, but the parties were required to complete the discovery steps mandated by the earlier judgment before the defendant's summary judgment motion could be heard.

This was a costs endorsement following a family trial concerning the father's claim for unsupervised access and, to a lesser extent, joint custody or decision-making respecting the child.

The court rejected any suggestion of divided success and found the matter should have been resolved without trial.

The court held the respondent's inflexible position made settlement impossible and accepted the time spent and hourly rates of the applicant's counsel as reasonable and necessary.

Costs were awarded to the applicant inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following earlier litigation involving the issuance of Notices of Prohibition by the Ministry, the successful party sought costs for multiple court attendances.

The court held that although costs were not specifically addressed at earlier hearings, they were necessary steps in the litigation and the successful party was entitled to recover costs.

The judge expressed concern that the ministry refused to hold its Notices of Prohibition in abeyance to allow an orderly hearing and indicated that substantial indemnity costs might otherwise have been appropriate.

However, due to deficiencies in the bill of costs and excessive hours claimed for research, the court reduced the hours and awarded partial indemnity costs.

Final costs were fixed at $45,076.33 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant father sought unsupervised access and joint custody of his young son.

The respondent mother opposed, citing fears for her safety and alleging the father had anger and alcohol issues, and requested continued supervised access.

After a lengthy trial reviewing the parties' tumultuous relationship and the father's successful supervised visits, the court found no evidence the father posed a danger to the child.

The court ordered joint custody with divided final decision-making authority, a progressive schedule for unsupervised access, and mandated the use of Our Family Wizard for communication.

The applicant supermarket owner sought judicial review of an automatic prohibition issued under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act after employees were convicted of selling tobacco to minors.

The prohibition barred the store from selling tobacco products for nine months based solely on employee convictions, even though the employer had never been charged and had no opportunity to assert the statutory due diligence defence available to owners.

The court found that the Ministry’s notice process, information system, and decision-making framework failed to provide adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity for the employer to present a defence.

Because the administrative system did not record or consider whether the employer had exercised due diligence, the issuance of the prohibition violated procedural fairness and frustrated the statutory scheme.

The notice of prohibition was quashed.

Costs endorsement following litigation over spousal support.

The court found that both parties had acted somewhat unreasonably: the respondent for refusing to agree to a reduction from the original support level set when the payor was employed full time, and the applicant for unilaterally ceasing spousal support contrary to a court order and failing to negotiate realistically regarding quantum and duration.

Despite this conduct on both sides, the respondent was overall substantially more successful in the litigation.

Costs were therefore fixed in favour of the respondent.