Jasmine T. Akbarali

The plaintiff sought to continue an ex parte Mareva injunction and certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against the defendant, Mornan, in relation to an $8 million cellphone robbery.

Mornan brought a cross-motion to set aside the orders.

The court found the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure on the original ex parte motion, misstating the defendant's criminal charges and involvement.

The court also found the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or a real risk of dissipation.

The Mareva injunction and CPLs were set aside, and the defendant was awarded full indemnity costs.

The applicant, Ontario, sought a declaration that its insurer, St. Paul, owed a duty to defend it in an underlying class action regarding bail system delays.

Ontario argued St. Paul was estopped from denying coverage due to its delay in communicating its position.

The court found no estoppel, as Ontario controlled its own defence and suffered no prejudice.

On the coverage issue, the court held the true nature of the underlying claims involved harms that were expected from Ontario's policy choices, which fell outside the policy's definition of an 'occurrence' or 'accident'.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a compliance application against the respondent unit owner, who suffered from a hoarding disorder.

The parties resolved the underlying application by consent order but could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $37,407.79.

The court found that while the respondent was not morally blameworthy, the innocent unit owners should not bear the cost of compelling compliance.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $25,000, reducing the requested amount due to duplication, unnecessary steps, and unrecoverable expenses.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against the Toronto Police Services Board, the former Chief of Police, and two police officers, alleging negligence and violations of the Charter and the Human Rights Code arising from his interactions with police when reporting an incident.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim and dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, as Charter damages cannot be claimed against individuals, there is no private law duty of care for police investigations, and a freestanding Human Rights Code claim cannot be brought in civil court.

The action was dismissed without leave to amend.

The applicant unions sought interim injunctions to restrain the respondent employers from enforcing mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies pending the outcome of labour arbitrations.

The court dismissed the Sinai application on the basis that the labour arbitration process provided an adequate alternative remedy, precluding the exercise of the court's residual jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the TTC application on the merits of the injunction test, finding that the loss of employment or income did not constitute irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the employer's obligation to protect public health and workplace safety.

The plaintiffs in a putative class proceeding regarding a cyber-breach of the defendant's computer systems sought approval of a notice plan for a proposed settlement.

The court approved the notice plan, which included direct notice to known affected individuals and indirect notice via press release and social media, finding it maximized breadth while minimizing costs.

The court ordered one amendment to include the Zoom link for the upcoming settlement approval hearing.

The moving party defendants, a real estate agent and his brokerage, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a crossclaim by the responding party defendants, the purchasers in a failed real estate transaction.

The moving parties argued the crossclaim was barred by a full and final release signed by the purchasers in exchange for the return of their deposit.

The purchasers argued the defence of non est factum, claiming they did not understand the document due to language barriers and misrepresentation.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the release extended to the brokerage and that non est factum did not apply because the purchasers were careless in signing the document without reading it or seeking translation, and there was no misrepresentation.

The plaintiff vendor sold a commercial office tower to the defendant purchaser.

The vendor claimed $67,457.38 in post-closing adjustments related to additional rent reconciliations.

The purchaser argued these were 'rent receivables' that the vendor had to collect directly from the tenants.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court interpreted the purchase agreement and found the amounts were general adjustments subject to readjustment between the vendor and purchaser, not rent receivables.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the vendor.

The defendants, a charitable organization and a church, brought a motion to strike the self-represented plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff alleged various wrongs, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and reprisal, arising from his involvement with the defendants and his subsequent removal from his alleged position as a board member.

Applying recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on voluntary religious organizations, the court found it lacked jurisdiction over most of the claims, as they did not involve the vindication of legal rights.

The claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment were struck with leave to amend, as they were legally tenable but lacked sufficient particulars.

The remaining claims were struck without leave to amend as frivolous or disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The defendant tenant and guarantor brought a motion to stay the plaintiff landlord's action for rent arrears in favour of arbitration, relying on the arbitration clause in their commercial lease.

The landlord opposed the stay, arguing the matter was a proper one for summary judgment under section 7(2)(5) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The court dismissed the motion to stay, finding that the tenant's proposed defences regarding additional rent and mitigation did not raise genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court allowed the litigation to proceed and awarded the landlord $5,000 in full indemnity costs.

The defendant obstetricians brought a motion for partial summary judgment in a medical negligence action, arguing the plaintiffs' expert reports were insufficient to establish standard of care or causation.

The motion was brought shortly before a scheduled ten-week trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that partial summary judgment would not be proportionate, cost-effective, or timely, and risked inconsistent findings and duplication of resources.

The court also noted that the sufficiency of the complex expert evidence was better assessed in the context of a full trial.

The court initiated a review of the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants allowed an unknown party to use their computer network to hack his computer, but failed to plead material facts supporting a tenable cause of action.

The court found the claim to be unfocused, vexatious, and lacking in specifics regarding duty, breach, causation, or damages.

The action was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.

Following the dismissal of the respondents' motion for Charter damages due to procedural errors, the applicant sought costs for the hearing and for a prior hearing.

The respondents argued they were public interest litigants and no costs should be awarded.

The court rejected this argument, finding that public interest litigants are not entitled to cause wasted costs through basic procedural errors.

The court awarded the applicant $15,000 in partial indemnity costs for the recent hearing and deferred the prior costs pending a determination on the merits.

Following a successful appeal that increased the father's parenting time, the court issued supplementary reasons to determine the parenting schedule for the summer of 2021.

The mother opposed the father's request for time, citing the children's enrollment in summer camps and a planned trip.

The court found the mother's attitude concerning and ordered a schedule that provided the father with three weeks of parenting time, requiring the cancellation of some recently booked camps to prioritize the children's time with their father.

The respondents brought an interim motion seeking Charter damages and a declaration of invalidity regarding COVID-19 public health regulations that restricted their restaurant operations.

The court dismissed the motion on threshold jurisdictional grounds, finding that the respondents failed to commence an originating process claiming such relief and that their Notice of Motion was procedurally defective.

The court held it had no jurisdiction to grant final Charter damages on an interlocutory motion.

The appellant father appealed a trial judge's order granting the respondent mother sole custody, permitting her to relocate with the children to Montreal, setting parenting time, and awarding costs.

The father also brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it was offered to test the trial judge's conclusions in hindsight rather than to update the court on the children's circumstances.

The court upheld the trial judge's decisions on custody and relocation, finding no palpable and overriding errors.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part regarding parenting time, finding the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to the maximum contact principle and the father's ability to teach the children about their Inuit heritage.

The court expanded the father's parenting time to include extended alternate weekends and significant holiday and summer blocks.

The defendant requested that the court consider dismissing the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or abusive.

The court found that the claim pleaded very limited facts and did not clearly plead a tenable cause of action.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiff to provide written submissions as to why the claim should not be dismissed, and stayed the action pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The plaintiff brought a motion to approve a settlement in a class proceeding against SiriusXM regarding the alleged unlawful collection and use of personal information from vehicle purchasers.

The proposed settlement provided for a $150,000 cy-près payment to the Automobile Protection Association to fund a privacy best practices report, with no direct compensation to class members.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable given the significant risks in the litigation, including the lack of evidence of actual harm or data breach, and the strong defences available to the defendants.

The settlement was approved.

Following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action where the plaintiff was awarded approximately $97,500, the parties made submissions on costs.

The defendant had made an early Rule 49 offer to settle for $107,000, which the plaintiff did not accept.

Because the plaintiff recovered less than the defendant's offer, the court applied Rule 49.10(2) and awarded the defendant its partial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $27,000 in costs to the defendant.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action regarding a commercial lease dispute, the defendant sought costs on a partial and substantial indemnity scale based on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The plaintiff argued for no costs, noting the defendant's conduct was not vindicated at trial as it had sought an improper collateral benefit when withholding consent to a lease transfer.

The court awarded the defendant fixed costs of $15,000 all-inclusive, balancing the defendant's success with its conduct and the plaintiff's failure to serve an offer to settle.