J.E. Ferguson

The applicant condominium owners sought a declaration that the respondent condominium corporation had no lawful right to charge back the cost of repairs resulting from a water leak in their unit.

The leak occurred from a toilet while the owners were away for five months.

The court found that the owners committed an omission by failing to properly maintain the toilet and retain a plumber after a previous malfunction, and by failing to shut off the water during their prolonged absence.

The application was dismissed, and the owners were held liable for the repair costs up to the insurance deductible.

The plaintiff, a first-time home buyer, entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property after being told by the seller and the real estate agent that the home was over 2,000 square feet.

An appraisal later revealed the property was only 1,450 square feet.

The plaintiff sought rescission of the agreement and the return of his deposit.

The court found that the plaintiff reasonably relied on the negligent misrepresentations regarding the property's size and granted rescission, ordering the return of the $50,000 deposit.

The applicant tenants brought an application for the interpretation of a commercial lease regarding parking rights and the payment of additional rent for utilities.

The court held that the lease clearly restricted the use of outdoor parking spaces to customers and visitors, denying the tenants' employees the right to park there.

However, regarding electricity costs, the court found the lease ambiguous and applied the contra proferentem rule against the respondent landlord, ruling that the tenants should pay based on actual usage rather than a proportionate share of square footage.

Success being divided, the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

The defendant union brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation claim on the basis of qualified privilege.

The plaintiff, a former union local president, alleged that statements made in a pamphlet distributed at an annual general meeting were defamatory.

The court found that the statements were made on an occasion of qualified privilege, as the union executive had a duty to respond to the plaintiff's ongoing criticisms and inform members of the local's history.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of express malice to defeat the privilege, and granted the summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff sued his neighbours in nuisance and negligence, alleging that their home reconstruction altered drainage patterns and caused water to infiltrate his basement.

The defendants counterclaimed for trespass, nuisance, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process, alleging the plaintiff's own landscaping caused the water issues and that the plaintiff's wife maliciously sought a peace bond against them.

The court dismissed both the claim and the counterclaim.

The court found the defendants' construction was reasonable, approved by the city, and did not breach the standard of care.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to prove causation, as expert evidence indicated the plaintiff's own landscaping likely caused the water accumulation.

The counterclaims were dismissed as trivial or lacking evidence of malice.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion and the granting of the defendants' summary judgment motion, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The defendants sought a combined total of approximately $150,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the plaintiffs argued for a significantly reduced amount of $60,000.

Applying the overriding principle of reasonableness, the court ordered the plaintiffs to pay $65,000 to the lead defendant and $30,000 to the remaining defendants.

The accused, the CEO of a Shariah-compliant home financing company and the chair of its Shariah Ethics Board, were charged with theft, fraud, money laundering, and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act offences.

The charges arose after the company was ordered into receivership and the CEO used company funds to purchase over $2 million in gold and silver bullion, which he claimed was to pay the Ethics Board for past services in accordance with Islamic finance principles.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the mens rea for the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, as the CEO had an honest belief, based on the Mudarabah partnership structure and Shariah law, that he was authorized to use the funds for this purpose.

Both accused were acquitted of all charges.

The moving party (Ontario) sought an order that no costs be awarded for a motion to strike, while the responding parties (plaintiffs) sought $4,500 in costs.

The court noted that success on the motion was divided, as the plaintiffs' most recent claim was not struck, but Ontario had taken many steps to move the matter along in response to the plaintiffs' repeated amendments to their pleadings.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) and the principle that costs are normally not awarded where success is divided, the court ordered no costs.

A municipal defendant sought costs after being named in a slip‑and‑fall action despite evidence that it neither owned nor maintained the property.

Ownership and maintenance responsibilities were admitted by the other defendants, yet the plaintiff refused to discontinue the claim against the municipality until after a summary judgment motion was served.

The court held that commencing the action and participating in discoveries was not unreasonable, but maintaining the claim thereafter unnecessarily increased litigation costs.

Costs were awarded against the plaintiff, though reduced from the amount claimed.

The accused was tried on historical sexual offence charges involving two complainants who were his step-daughters.

The court reviewed the governing principles on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the W.(D.) framework, delayed disclosure in sexual abuse cases, the assessment of evidence concerning childhood events, and the distinction between sincerity and reliability.

Although the court found the complainants and supporting witnesses sincere, it concluded that extensive inconsistencies, the frailties of memory concerning distant events, and collective post-disclosure discussions rendered the evidence unreliable.

Applying the second branch of W.(D.), the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all counts.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant to enforce a debt obligation under a promissory note.

The defendant admitted to signing the note and acknowledging the debt but raised a defence of duress during cross-examination, which was not pleaded.

The court applied the full appreciation test under Rule 20 and found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant's evidence did not support a finding of operative duress.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the acknowledged debt amount.

The applicant, charged jointly with a co-accused for assault with a weapon and aggravated assault, brought a motion to sever his trial from that of his co-accused.

The applicant argued that a statement made by the co-accused to police, which placed the applicant at the scene, would cause prejudice if heard by a jury in a joint trial.

The court applied the factors for severance and concluded that a strong limiting instruction to the jury would be sufficient to prevent prejudice.

The application for severance was dismissed.

The plaintiff tripped and fell in a pothole in a Sobeys parking lot.

Sobeys brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing it had delegated responsibility for parking lot maintenance to its landlord, the co-defendant, via a lease agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a mere assignment of responsibility is insufficient to discharge an occupier's duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

A genuine issue for trial exists regarding whether Sobeys implemented an adequate system of inspection to ensure the co-defendant was acting properly and competently.