Jasmine T. Akbarali

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order that her sister, the respondent, undergo a capacity assessment.

The underlying application involved a family dispute over the ownership of a residential property and concerns that the respondent, who has lifelong cognitive limitations, was vulnerable to undue influence by another sibling.

Applying the factors from Abrams v. Abrams, the court found reasonable grounds to believe the respondent was incapable and that an assessment was necessary to determine if she required a litigation guardian and a guardian of property.

The motion was granted, and the respondent was ordered to submit to a capacity assessment.

The plaintiff tenant sought damages against the defendant landlord for allegedly unreasonably refusing to consent to an assignment of a commercial lease to a prospective purchaser of the plaintiff's restaurant.

The landlord refused to consider the assignment until the tenant removed an unauthorized patio and dismissed an ongoing lawsuit against the landlord.

The court found that while demanding the dismissal of the lawsuit was an improper collateral purpose, the requirement to remove the unauthorized patio was a reasonable ground to withhold consent.

Because a reasonable basis existed, the refusal was justified, and the plaintiff's action was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, finding that the plaintiff was not a powerful entity using litigation to intimidate a vulnerable opponent and that the claim had substantial merit.

Applying a modest discount for the defendants' delay in bringing the motion, the court awarded the defendants $75,000 in costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs' motion for an interim injunction was previously dismissed.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The successful defendant, a self-represented retiree, sought costs for the time he and his wife spent responding to the motion.

The plaintiffs argued that under Girao v. Cunningham, the defendant was not entitled to costs because he did not forego remunerative activity.

The court held that while the defendant did not incur an opportunity cost in the form of lost wages, a modest costs award was still appropriate to encourage settlement and prevent the plaintiffs from litigating with impunity.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $1,500 in costs.

The plaintiff, a 52-year-old general manager in the media industry, was terminated without cause after 5.5 years of employment.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court determined the reasonable notice period to be 8 months.

The court found the plaintiff was entitled to damages for her lost bonus, as it was an integral part of her compensation and not unambiguously excluded by her contract.

However, the notice period was reduced by 2 months because the plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate her damages, having delayed her job search and applied almost exclusively for more senior roles.

The plaintiffs, including a condominium corporation and its directors, brought a motion for an interim injunction to restrain a unit owner from publishing allegedly defamatory Facebook posts accusing them of financial mismanagement and theft.

The plaintiffs also sought to amend their claim to add another plaintiff.

The court dismissed the injunction motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to meet the heightened standard for a mandatory injunction in defamation cases, as they could not show the statements were impossible to justify given the evidence of financial discrepancies.

The motion to amend the claim was granted as unopposed.

The applicant sought a court order to appoint an arbitrator under a dispute resolution clause in a shared ownership agreement for an antique double bass.

The respondent, who resides in the Netherlands, failed to engage in the selection of a mediator or arbitrator.

The court found that the Arbitration Act, 1991 applied, as the agreement was not commercial in nature.

The court granted the application and appointed the applicant's proposed arbitrator, awarding costs to the applicant.

The defendants, a national broadcaster and its employees, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiff, a student travel company, alleged that the defendants' reporting on the death of a student during a trip was defamatory.

The court found that the expression related to a matter of public interest and that the plaintiff failed to show there was no valid defence, specifically the defence of fair comment.

The court also found the balance of harms favoured protecting the expression, and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order requiring him to post $20,000 in security for costs.

The plaintiff argued the Master erred in finding he was not ordinarily resident in Ontario and in concluding the order was just.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the Master's factual conclusion regarding residency, including the plaintiff's limited time in Ontario, lack of assets, and intention to return to Malaysia.

The court also held the Master made no error of law, having properly balanced the plaintiff's access to justice against the defendants' need for protection from an uncollectible costs award.

The defendants brought motions to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statements of claim in two actions without leave to amend.

The claims arose from a failed transaction for the purchase of dental practices and sought a total of $90 million in damages against various professional advisors, family members, and employers of the intended purchasers.

The court found the pleadings to be scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting they were replete with irrelevant historical facts, inappropriate definitions, and inflammatory allegations.

The court concluded the actions were commenced for the improper purpose of harassing the defendants and struck the claims without leave to amend, awarding substantial indemnity costs to the defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a consent order to reflect the settlement of an employment action against a self-represented former employee.

The draft judgment included a one-year non-competition clause that was not geographically limited and exceeded the relief sought in the statement of claim.

The court declined to sign the consent order, noting the lack of evidence regarding the reasonableness of the non-competition clause and the defendant's fiduciary status, but did so without prejudice to the plaintiff bringing another motion on a proper record.

The applicant widow brought a constitutional challenge against the eligibility criteria for liver transplants, arguing that the requirement for patients with alcohol-related liver disease to demonstrate abstinence or undergo rigorous multidisciplinary screening discriminated against them on the basis of their alcohol use disorder.

The court found that while the estate had standing to bring the claim, the challenge to the historical six-month sobriety rule was moot.

On the merits of the current criteria, the court held there was no violation of sections 15(1), 7, or 12 of the Charter, as the criteria were based on the best available medical evidence to allocate scarce organs to those most likely to have successful outcomes.

The court also found that the living donor program criteria were clinical policies not subject to Charter scrutiny.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to certify the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes only.

The action alleged that the defendants improperly collected and used the personal information of individuals who purchased or leased vehicles equipped with satellite radios.

The court reviewed the criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues existed, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and there was an adequate representative plaintiff.

The motion was granted and the action was certified for settlement purposes.

The moving party defendants sought disclosure of a settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and the settling defendants, arguing it altered the adversarial landscape.

The plaintiffs claimed settlement privilege but failed to adduce evidence that the agreement did not require cooperation.

After reviewing the sealed agreement, the court found it was a typical settlement that did not alter the adversarial landscape and dismissed the motion.

However, the court awarded costs of $1,000 to the unsuccessful moving party defendants because the plaintiffs' failure to provide evidence unreasonably complicated the motion.

The plaintiff, an aluminum scrap brokerage, sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain a former employee from competing against it.

The plaintiff alleged the employee breached fiduciary duties and a restrictive covenant in his employment agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case.

The employee was not a fiduciary because the plaintiff was not peculiarly vulnerable to him, as deals in the industry are driven by price rather than relationships.

Furthermore, the restrictive covenant was an overly broad and unenforceable non-competition clause.

The plaintiff also failed to prove irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the employee.

This decision addresses the costs of a wrongful dismissal action following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff was awarded five months' notice.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $47,519.40, while the defendant sought costs related to abandoned claims for punitive, aggravated, moral, and Human Rights Code damages.

The court awarded the plaintiff $22,000 in all-inclusive costs, finding that while the recovery was within Small Claims Court limits, commencing the action in Superior Court was initially appropriate due to the complexity of claims and defences.

The court declined to make a cross-award for costs related to abandoned claims, emphasizing that abandoning claims can be a reasonable litigation step and that proportionality and fairness are key considerations in costs awards.

Dr. Chandrasegaram, a long-standing board member of the Canadian Tamil Medical Association (CTMA), brought an application challenging the election of Dr. Ruban as Chairman.

He alleged irregularities including non-compliance with bylaws regarding automatic elevation to Chairman, late declaration of candidacy, and improper admission of new members.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while some irregularities existed, they did not go to the heart of the electoral process or alter the majority's wishes, especially given the organization's past practices and the significant vote margin.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) and interim injunctive relief to compel the defendants to sign a severance application and to enjoin them from interfering with a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) proceeding.

The defendant Sedona Place Co-Ownership Inc. sought an order directing the proceeding to arbitration.

The court granted the CPL, finding a triable issue involving an interest in land and that damages were not an adequate remedy.

The court also granted the mandatory injunction compelling the severance consent, noting the defendants' breach of the option agreement and the potential for irreparable harm to the plaintiffs' development.

A prohibitory injunction preventing interference with the LPAT hearing was also granted based on the defendants' past conduct and potential irreparable harm.

The action was stayed to allow the parties to proceed to arbitration on agreed terms, with residual court jurisdiction.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs, including Grand Chief Wabiska Mukwa and the Manary family, launched a wide-ranging action against various defendants, including provincial and federal governments, their agents, and Farm Credit Canada (FCC), raising land claims, Indigenous rights, and challenging mortgages.

The defendants brought multiple motions: two Rule 2.1 requests to dismiss the claims as frivolous/vexatious, a Rule 21 motion to strike claims against counsel for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and FCC's motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim for mortgage enforcement.

The plaintiffs also brought a recusal motion against the presiding judge.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' recusal motion, found the plaintiffs' claims to be "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments" (OPCA) and non-justiciable, dismissed all plaintiffs' claims against all defendants under Rule 2.1 and Rule 21, and granted FCC's summary judgment motion for payment on the mortgages and possession of the properties.

Costs were awarded against the plaintiffs.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking the return of the parties' seven-year-old child to Los Angeles, California, under the Hague Convention, or, alternatively, interim parenting orders if the child remained in Ontario.

The court applied the "focal point of the child's life" test to determine habitual residence, finding that the child's habitual residence had shifted to Ontario due to the respondent mother's unilateral actions and disappearance, and the child's integration into Ontario life.

Consequently, the Hague Convention did not apply, and Ontario had jurisdiction.

The court also found that even if the Hague Convention applied, exceptions for grave risk of harm and acquiescence would prevent the child's return.

Interim parenting orders were granted, giving the applicant primary residence and major decision-making authority, with other issues adjourned to a case conference.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.