James W. Sloan

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants for environmental contamination migrating from the defendants' property onto the plaintiff's adjacent lands.

The court found that chlorinated solvents (TCE) originated from the defendants' property and flowed via groundwater onto the plaintiff's lands.

The court held the defendants liable in nuisance, negligence, and trespass.

The court also pierced the corporate veil, finding the individual defendant jointly and severally liable due to his egregious conduct and failure to remediate the property despite promises to do so.

The court ordered the defendants to remediate their property and awarded damages of $1,809,908.80, with a further $2,800,000 payable if remediation is not completed on schedule.

The owners of one commercial-residential property sought declaratory and monetary relief arising from a long-running parking and access dispute with the owner and tenant-operators of the adjoining property.

The court found continuous, uninterrupted, open and peaceful historical use of a narrow strip of the adjoining lands and the rear parking area sufficient to establish a prescriptive easement before land titles conversion.

The court also held that repeated obstruction of the east-west right-of-way and deliberate parking conduct by certain defendants constituted nuisance, but rejected claims for trespass damages and intentional interference with economic relations.

Counterclaims by the adjoining tenant and related parties were dismissed.

The court granted declaratory relief and awarded a total of $30,000 against three defendants.

Kin Canada and The Kinsmen Club of Oshawa (Applicants) brought an application seeking a declaration that their insurers, Ecclesiastical Insurance Office Public Company Limited and Certain Non-Marine Underwriters o/a Lloyd’s Of London and Lloyd’s Canada (Respondents), had a duty to defend them in an underlying lawsuit.

The underlying claim involved damages related to the discovery of underground oil storage tanks (USTs) on a property sold by The Kinsmen Club of Oshawa in 2005, with allegations of negligent misrepresentation and mismanagement, and vicarious liability against Kin Canada.

The court found that the pollution exclusion clauses in both insurance policies applied, as the true nature of the underlying claim was environmental pollution arising from leaking USTs and the failure to comply with regulatory requirements for their removal.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application, ruling that the duty to defend did not arise for either insurer.

The accused faced nine charges including accessing, making, and possessing child pornography, voyeurism, distributing intimate images without consent, extortion, criminal harassment, and breach of recognizance.

The charges arose from a police investigation into a user named 'Criza' on a Russian image-sharing website, which led to the seizure of multiple electronic devices from the accused's residence.

The court found the circumstantial evidence overwhelming that the accused was the user 'Criza', that he created the 'River Videos' depicting child pornography, and that he distributed intimate images of former partners without consent.

The accused was found guilty on eight of the nine counts, being acquitted only of one count of voyeurism where the court had a reasonable doubt regarding consent.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder of his intimate partner, applied for bail pending trial.

At the time of the offence, he was on bail for breaking into the victim's home.

Following the killing, he fled to the United States and was apprehended 2.5 months later.

The accused proposed a release plan involving house arrest, GPS monitoring, and his mother and sister as sureties.

The court dismissed the application on all three grounds, finding the accused ungovernable, contemptuous of court orders, and a flight risk, and concluding that his proposed sureties could not adequately supervise him.

Following a judgment on the merits, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the plaintiffs' and a non-party's vexatious conduct.

The court agreed that substantial indemnity costs were warranted, but reduced the requested amount by $15,000 to sanction the defendant's own witness for frustrating an examination.

Costs were fixed at $39,803.89, payable jointly and severally by the plaintiffs and the non-party.

The applicant sought a prescriptive easement over a sand path on the respondents' land to access the beach from his cottage.

The respondents opposed, arguing the easement was not reasonably necessary and that their predecessors in title were unaware of the path's use.

The court found that the path was reasonably necessary for the better enjoyment of the cottage property and that the applicant had proven 20 years of continuous, open, and uninterrupted use.

The motion for a prescriptive easement was granted.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action for specific performance due to egregious litigation misconduct, the defendant brought a motion seeking forfeiture of a $200,000 deposit and an order making the non-party principal of one of the plaintiffs personally liable for costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs' destruction and concealment of evidence made it impossible to determine who was at fault for the failed real estate transaction, warranting an adverse inference that the plaintiffs were not ready, willing, and able to close.

The court ordered the deposit forfeited to the defendant and held the non-party principal jointly and severally liable for costs due to his abusive litigation conduct, including the concealment of a related lawsuit between the plaintiffs.

The applicant sought to terminate the respondents' occupancy of her home, arguing it was a familial arrangement and not a tenancy.

The respondents contended they had a valid tenancy under the Commercial Tenancies Act based on an unsigned agreement and part performance.

The court found the arrangement was familial, not a tenancy, and ordered the respondents to vacate the property, emphasizing that family arrangements can negate the intention to create a legal tenancy.

Metrolinx sought substantial indemnity costs against 1604945 Ontario Inc. following motions heard in February 2021.

Metrolinx alleged reprehensible conduct by the plaintiff's solicitor, including abusive remarks, failure to provide relevant law, and vexatious actions that unnecessarily lengthened proceedings.

The plaintiff argued costs should be left to the trial judge and denied reprehensible conduct.

The court found the plaintiff's counsel's conduct, particularly towards Metrolinx's female counsel, unprofessional and awarded Metrolinx substantial indemnity costs of $47,270.75, reduced by $5,000 for Metrolinx's non-compliance with page limits for submissions.

The plaintiff sought clarification of a previous judgment regarding the specific lands subject to an easement dispute, and moved for a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendant regarding its construction plans.

The defendant requested production of the plaintiff's full commercial leases.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for further documents, finding the defendant's construction plans irrelevant to whether the plaintiff has an easement.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce its full leases and clarified the geographic boundaries of the subject lands.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's administrative dismissal and for summary judgment against one of the defendants.

The Arvai defendants successfully defended the motion and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $27,849.47.

The plaintiff argued for a proportionate amount between $8,180 and $8,800.

The court found the defendants' bill to be "breathtaking" but acknowledged the complexity and risk involved in the summary judgment motion.

Costs were awarded to the Arvai defendants in the amount of $17,371.54, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff, 1604945 Ontario Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent Metrolinx from interfering with its use of a "laneway" on Metrolinx's property, over which the plaintiff claimed a prescriptive easement.

Metrolinx, a Crown Agency, intended to use the land for major public transit infrastructure projects.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding the prescriptive easement claim, no irreparable harm to the plaintiff, and that the balance of convenience strongly favored Metrolinx due to the public benefit and significant costs associated with delaying the infrastructure projects.

The court emphasized that federal railway legislation prevented the acquisition of prescriptive easements over federal railway lands and that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of continuous, uninterrupted use or a proper legal description of the claimed easement.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the administrative dismissal of its action for a litigation loan, extend the time to set the action down for trial, and obtain default judgment against one of the defendants.

The action had been dismissed for delay after more than five years of inactivity following the issuance of the statement of claim.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer significant prejudice due to the high interest rate on the loan.

The motion was dismissed.

In a personal injury action, the defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce a further and better affidavit of documents and to pay for the production of pre-accident medical records.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant should bear the cost of obtaining records not currently in her possession.

The court held that routine pre-accident medical records are relevant and producible at the plaintiff's expense, as they are a standard part of personal injury litigation.

In a long-standing and highly acrimonious family trust dispute, the court considered multiple motions, including motions to dismiss for delay and abuse of process, and motions for a further and better accounting.

The court found that the plaintiffs (two of the sons) had engaged in an abuse of process through a 'scorched-earth' litigation strategy, including failing to produce relevant documents they controlled, changing counsel repeatedly, refusing to mediate, and launching collateral attacks.

Consequently, the court dismissed their actions.

However, recognizing that the trusts still required an accounting for the benefit of the other beneficiaries (the grandchildren), the court ordered the remaining trustees to provide a further and better accounting, and ordered the redemption of the matriarch's shares in the underlying holding company.

The accused, charged with two counts of second-degree murder, applied for judicial interim release (bail).

The Crown presented exceptionally strong evidence, including DNA, cell phone records placing the accused near the crime scene and a pawnshop where victims' items were sold, and testimony from five witnesses alleging confessions or suspicious inquiries.

The proposed sureties, the accused's mother and a friend, were deemed weak due to lack of positive influence, lack of knowledge about the accused's history, and questionable commitment to surety duties.

The court found that electronic monitoring could not compensate for the weak sureties and dismissed the application on both secondary and tertiary grounds, confirming the accused's continued detention pending trial.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant purchaser for a failed real estate transaction and added their own lawyers, KGB, as a defendant solely because KGB held the deposit in trust.

The defendant purchaser crossclaimed against KGB for contribution and indemnity under the Negligence Act, alleging KGB negligently drafted the agreement of purchase and sale.

KGB moved to strike the crossclaim under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The court granted the motion, finding that KGB owed no duty of care to the opposing party and that the underlying dispute was framed in contract, not negligence.

The crossclaim was struck without leave to amend.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2016 consent order to allow her to relocate the parties' two children from Cambridge to Waterford in Norfolk County.

The mother had previously moved the children without consent and was found in contempt, but argued she had no choice due to severe financial hardship and the offer of employment and housing from her family in Norfolk County.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the significant economic and emotional benefits available to the mother and children in Waterford.

The court concluded that the mother was the primary parent and that the relocation was in the children's best interests, granting the move and establishing a new parenting schedule.

This judgment addresses two pre-trial applications: the Crown's application for a support person for a complainant (C.C.) and the accused's alternate suspect application.

The parties consented to the support person application.

The accused sought to introduce J.W. as an alternate suspect for child pornography charges, arguing J.W. had motive and opportunity.

The court dismissed the alternate suspect application, finding insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable connection between J.W. and the crime, concluding the inferences amounted to speculation rather than an air of reality.