Janet E. Mills

The applicant sought a determination of its rights to a possessory lien over storage containers owned by the respondent, which were deposited by a third-party logistics subcontractor without the respondent's knowledge.

The court found that while the applicant acquired a possessory lien upon receiving the containers, it failed to provide the mandatory 60-day notice to the owner under s. 4(4) of the Repair and Storage Liens Act despite knowing the subcontractor did not own them.

Consequently, the applicant's lien was limited to the unpaid amount for the first 60 days of storage.

The applicant's claim for a non-possessory lien was dismissed as there was no signed acknowledgment of indebtedness.

The applicant storage company sought to enforce a possessory lien against storage containers owned by the respondent, which had been deposited by a third-party logistics subcontractor without the respondent's knowledge.

The court found that while a possessory lien arose upon receipt of the containers, the applicant's failure to provide the mandatory 60-day statutory notice to the owner under the Repair and Storage Liens Act limited its lien to the first 60 days of storage fees.

The applicant's alternative claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit were dismissed because the respondent did not request or freely accept the storage services.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce non-competition and non-solicitation clauses against a former investment advisor.

The defendant had previously sold his business to the plaintiff's parent company and signed an employment agreement containing the restrictive covenants.

After resigning, the defendant allegedly solicited clients and employees to join him at a competing firm, and breached an interim injunction by contacting clients.

The court found a strong prima facie case that the restrictive covenants were valid and breached, and that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm.

The interlocutory injunction was granted.

The plaintiff, an architectural design firm, sued the defendants for unpaid invoices relating to three construction projects.

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract and breach of trust under the Construction Act.

The defendants counterclaimed for damages, alleging the plaintiff caused project delays by withholding final drawings and made misrepresentations to the municipality.

The court found the corporate defendants and their principal liable for breach of trust regarding the main project, and the principal personally liable for an oral contract on a referral project.

The counterclaim was dismissed as the defendants failed to prove the plaintiff was solely responsible for the delays or made any misrepresentations.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for $33,572.73.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for an interim injunction.

As the defendants were only served on the morning of the hearing, the motion proceeded effectively on an ex parte basis.

The court found sufficient grounds in the plaintiff's materials to justify issuing an interim injunction and scheduled a return date for a full hearing.

The parties, who were in a common law relationship, purchased a property as joint tenants.

The applicant funded the entire downpayment and the vast majority of the ongoing operating expenses.

After the relationship ended and the property was sold, the applicant sought reimbursement for 50% of the costs based on unjust enrichment and resulting trust.

The court found that the parties had an oral agreement to share the costs equally, which was enforceable due to part performance.

The respondent was ordered to pay $523,007.58 to the applicant for his share of the downpayment, mortgage, and operating expenses.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of a CIETAC arbitral award issued in China.

The respondent resisted enforcement on the grounds of incapacity and public policy, alleging that he signed the underlying repayment agreement under threat, coercion, and mental distress.

The court held that those allegations had already been raised before and rejected by the arbitral tribunal, and that the respondent's position amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on the award.

Applying the limited refusal grounds under the New York Convention and Model Law, the court found no viable basis to deny enforcement and granted judgment in accordance with the award.

The defendants were jointly charged with possession of fentanyl and p-Fluorofentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, following the execution of a search warrant at an apartment.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove possession.

The court found that the primary tenant had constructive possession of the drugs based on his connection to the apartment, a backpack containing drugs, and hidden cash.

However, the court acquitted the co-accused, who was found sleeping in the apartment during the raid, concluding there was insufficient evidence to prove he had knowledge or control of the drugs or a prohibited weapon found on the premises.

The co-accused was also acquitted of a breach of release order charge.

The plaintiff, Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC), brought a debt collection action against Winston Ang in Halton Region.

The court found no logical connection to Halton Region and, following the precedent in The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. The Other End Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 85, ordered the matter transferred to Toronto Region.

The motion for summary judgment was adjourned sine die, and a related 2023 action against Mr. Ang was dismissed without costs and without prejudice.

The decision addresses a motion by MGW Home Designs Inc. to restore a construction lien action to the trial list after it was administratively struck, and a cross-motion by Domenic Pasqualino to discharge the lien and dismiss an adjudicator’s order.

The court applies the Reid Factors to determine whether to restore the action, finds no abuse of process by MGW, and upholds the enforceability of the adjudicator’s order pending final determination.

The court also addresses the interplay between adjudication and lien proceedings, limitation period issues, and awards substantial indemnity costs to MGW.

The defendant Westreich brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim against him, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The litigation involved a failed partnership for a land development project, with allegations that Westreich assisted other defendants in misappropriating the project.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff pleaded sufficient material facts to support claims of inducing breach of contract, knowing assistance, knowing receipt, and unlawful conduct conspiracy.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, reducing the requested amount to align with the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

The applicant, a tenant, sought declarations that the Town of Milton's Short-Term Rental (STR) by-law was ultra vires and inapplicable to his property, and that its enforcement infringed his Charter rights (Sections 7 and 15).

He also sought substantial monetary damages for emotional distress and lost income from operating an STR.

The court dismissed the application in its entirety, finding no legal or factual basis for claims against the landlords, no conflict between the STR by-law and the Residential Tenancies Act, and no Charter breaches.

The court confirmed the Town's authority to regulate STRs and that the applicant's Airbnb operation constituted an STR business subject to the by-law and fire safety regulations.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The defendant, BDA Inc., brought a motion to reduce the bond filed as security in a construction lien matter, arguing that funds paid to its lawyers in trust, pursuant to an ODACC adjudication determination, should be credited against the lien amount.

The plaintiff, High Tech Power Inc., opposed the full reduction, contending that funds held in trust by the defendant's counsel were not "paid" to the lien claimant and thus could not stand as security.

The court ruled that funds held in a lawyer's trust account on behalf of the client do not constitute payment to the lien claimant and cannot be considered security for the lien, as they do not ensure the flow of money as intended by the Construction Act.

The motion for a full reduction was dismissed, and the bond was reduced only by the amount High Tech Power Inc. had consented to.

The plaintiff, severely injured in a correctional facility assault, sought leave to amend his statement of claim to identify anonymous correctional officers and lift a statutory stay to pursue claims against them, alleging bad faith.

The court denied leave to add the officers, finding no reasonable prospect of success on the bad faith claim.

While the plaintiff demonstrated good faith in bringing the action, the officers' actions, though negligent, did not meet the high threshold for bad faith, which requires intent or conscious wrongdoing.

The court also denied leave to include a breach of fiduciary duty claim against the individual officers, as the Crown generally owes no fiduciary duty to inmates, and no personal duty was pleaded.

Leave was granted for a minor amendment to plead specific conduct from an investigation report.

The applicant sought a declaration that a foreign ex parte divorce obtained by the respondent in Pakistan was invalid and should not be recognized in Ontario.

The court found that the parties lacked a real and substantial connection to Pakistan for divorce purposes, and the respondent had obtained the divorce through material misrepresentations and without proper service, constituting fraud and a breach of natural justice.

The applicant's motion was granted, declaring the Pakistani divorce invalid.

The respondent's cross-motion to amend her pleading to seek spousal support was granted on consent.

The plaintiff, Mira Kovacevic, sought payment of $576,133.77 for caregiver and attendant care services allegedly provided to the defendants, Slobodan Griva and Milena Griva, following a motor vehicle accident, plus $50,000 in punitive damages.

The defendants did not attend the trial, which proceeded on an uncontested basis with the plaintiff's affidavit evidence.

The court found the plaintiff's timesheets and invoices to be exaggerated or fabricated and not credible.

While acknowledging an agreement for $2,000 per month for services, the court determined the plaintiff had already been overcompensated.

The claim for general damages was dismissed.

The punitive damages claim was also dismissed, as no actionable wrong was proven, and allegations made in pleadings are subject to absolute privilege.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed in its entirety, with no order as to costs.

The applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus challenging the Correctional Service of Canada's decision to suspend his day parole, alleging procedural unfairness.

The Parole Board of Canada upheld the suspension.

The court dismissed the application, declining jurisdiction based on the "Peiroo exception" which defers to comprehensive statutory review schemes.

The applicant's medical condition was not deemed an exceptional circumstance to bypass this principle.

The respondent was found in contempt for deliberately breaching an interim preservation and non-dissipation order by obtaining mortgages on a property, transferring proceeds to her mother, and transferring another property to her sister.

Despite being given four months to undertake meaningful efforts to purge the contempt, she failed to do so.

The court considered aggravating factors, such as the deliberate and flagrant nature of the breaches and financial benefit, and mitigating factors, including her admission and apology.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $180,000 into court by a specific date, failing which a 15-day custodial sentence would be imposed.

The court also ordered disclosure related to an undisclosed property.

This motion addressed the conflict between the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) and the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the disclosure of personal information in litigation.

The plaintiff sought to compel the Town of Oakville to disclose the last known addresses of former municipal employees relevant to the case, which the Town refused, citing MFIPPA.

The court ruled that a litigant may obtain a court order for relevant disclosure without first fully exhausting the MFIPPA statutory appeal process, as the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly the deemed undertaking rule, provide sufficient privacy safeguards.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking to compel the respondent mother to undergo a mental health assessment under s. 105(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, alleging she suffered from schizophrenia.

He also sought the release of police records.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant's evidence was based on conjecture and speculation, and that the request was an unjustified intrusion on the respondent's privacy rights.

The court also found the motion was brought to intimidate and embarrass the respondent, awarding her full indemnity costs.