Jana Steele

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision upholding a finding of incapacity and a Community Treatment Order (CTO).

By the time of the appeal, the CTO had expired and two subsequent CTOs had been issued, including one based on a new capacity assessment rather than the prior CTOs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that a decision would have no practical effect on the appellant's rights and no special circumstances warranted hearing the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his community treatment order and upholding the finding that he was incapable of consenting to antipsychotic medication and his community treatment plan.

The Superior Court found the appeal regarding the community treatment order was moot because it had expired and a new order was issued under different statutory criteria.

The court also held the Board made no palpable and overriding error in finding the appellant incapable of consenting to treatment, as there was sufficient evidence he could not appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his treatment decisions.

The tenant and landlord brought cross-applications regarding a commercial lease dispute arising during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The parties had agreed to a temporary rent reduction during the lockdown, but disputed its duration and whether the landlord was obligated to apply for the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance (CECRA) program.

The court found the rent relief agreement validly terminated in August 2020 and that the landlord made no binding promise to apply for CECRA.

However, applying the doctrine of spent breach, the court held the tenant could still exercise its lease renewal option provided arrears were paid.

Claims regarding maintenance breaches were directed to trial.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for long-term disability benefits, arguing it was statute-barred and that the plaintiff failed to submit a timely notice of claim.

The court found that the limitation period did not begin to run until the insurer issued a clear and unequivocal denial letter, making the action timely.

The court also granted the plaintiff relief from forfeiture for the late notice of claim, finding the breach caused minimal prejudice to the insurer compared to the significant harm the plaintiff would suffer if denied coverage.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's action regarding the allocation of shareholdings in a holding company.

The parties, former spouses, disputed whether the respondent owned 30% or 50% of the shares, with the respondent claiming a constructive trust over 20% of the shares due to family law and unjust enrichment principles.

The court found that the corporate records were deficient and that the intertwined family law complexities, including the respondent's decision not to seek an equalization payment, created critical factual disputes.

The court concluded there was a genuine issue for trial and denied summary judgment.

The plaintiff insurance brokerage moved for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that the defendant taxi management company held insurance premiums collected from its fleet members in trust for the insurer.

The court granted partial summary judgment regarding the first insurance contract (RSA Contract), finding a statutory trust arose under section 402 of the Insurance Act because the defendant acted as an agent in negotiating the insurance and received premium monies.

The court declined to grant partial summary judgment regarding the second insurance contract (FA Contract) due to factual complexities, but ordered the defendant to pay the collected premiums into court.

The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) and the Federation of Rental Housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO) sought representation orders under Rule 10.01(1)(f) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to represent unknown tenants and landlords, respectively, in a motion to set aside an order suspending residential evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the requests, finding that the case did not fall within the enumerated types of proceedings for a Rule 10 order and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting one, as each tenant facing eviction has unique circumstances.

Furthermore, the court held that ACTO, as an advocacy group without a direct interest or shared cause of action, was not an appropriate representative.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment for possession of the mortgaged property and payment of the mortgage debt.

The defendant mortgagor opposed, arguing she was duped into the mortgage by third parties who were acting as agents for the plaintiff, and sought leave to issue a third-party claim.

The court found no evidence of an agency relationship between the plaintiff and the alleged conspirators, and granted summary judgment as there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court denied leave to issue the third-party claim, finding it would cause undue delay and prejudice to the plaintiff.

The defendants (plaintiffs by counterclaim) brought an urgent motion for interim injunctive relief to stop the plaintiffs and their principals from engaging in a relentless campaign of online harassment and defamation via Instagram.

The dispute originated from a failed transaction involving luxury handbags and watches, which previously led to ex parte Mareva and Anton Piller orders against the defendants.

The court found that the principals of the plaintiff corporation had posted highly defamatory statements, threats, and images obtained from the execution of the court orders.

Applying the stringent test for defamation injunctions, the court granted the requested relief, ordering the removal of the posts and restraining further contact and publication.

The defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim brought an urgent motion for an interim injunction to restrain the plaintiffs/defendants to the counterclaim from publishing defamatory statements and images on Instagram and other internet platforms, and from contacting them.

The court found that the moving parties met the stringent test for an interlocutory injunction in a defamation context, noting the extensive and vitriolic nature of the posts, which included threats and the improper use of information obtained through ex parte Anton Piller and Mareva orders.

The motion was granted.

At an urgent case conference days before a peremptory 10-day non-jury trial, the defendants requested the trial proceed virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic and defence counsel's heightened health risks.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing that credibility issues and the need for an interpreter required in-person viva voce testimony.

The court applied Rule 1.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and ordered the trial to proceed by videoconference, emphasizing the need to keep matters moving during the pandemic and the unacceptable risk of forcing attendance contrary to medical advice.