Jennifer Ng

The Corporation of the City of Quinte West sought a declaration of abandonment and transfer of title for the Stone Church United Cemetery.

The court found that the cemetery lands were abandoned within the meaning of the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, and granted the requested declaratory and ancillary relief to facilitate the transfer of ownership to the municipality.

The court also dispensed with the requirements for service and filing a factum, given the lack of opposition and the straightforward nature of the application.

The Corporation of the County of Prince Edward sought a declaration of ownership and a vesting order for MacDonald Street in Wellington, Ontario, a parcel of land with no registered owner.

The court found that the County had established ownership through decades of public expenditure and maintenance, as well as by-law dedication, and that the requirements for dedication and acceptance as a public highway were met.

The court also exercised its discretion to grant a vesting order, correcting the title to the subject lands.

The court granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Parham Pozhhan, for damages, pre-judgment interest, and substantial indemnity costs arising from the defendant Pedram Pozhhan’s breach of fiduciary duties and misappropriation of trust funds.

The court declined to award punitive damages but found the defendant’s conduct justified substantial indemnity costs.

The decision follows a prior partial default judgment confirming the plaintiff’s sole beneficial ownership of the property at issue.

The decision concerns the validity and testamentary effect of a 2019 Option Agreement, 2019 Wills, and two handwritten documents in the estate of Joyce Eileen Laur.

The applicant, Robert Jackson Laur, sought a declaration that the Option Agreement was valid and enforceable, and that at least one handwritten document constituted a holograph will.

The respondents argued incapacity and undue influence regarding the Option Agreement and challenged the testamentary intent of the handwritten documents.

The court found that the Option Agreement was valid and enforceable, as it reflected a longstanding intention and was not a new or complex decision for Grant Laur, despite his cognitive impairment.

The court also found that the handwritten documents did not reflect Joyce Laur’s fixed and final testamentary intention and thus had no testamentary import.

This decision concerns an application under the Partition Act regarding jointly owned property at 63 Hiscock Blvd., Scarborough, Ontario.

The applicant, Syed Azadar Bukhari, sought an order for sale of the property, which was opposed by the respondent, Nadia Muneeb Bukhari, on the basis of the applicant’s failure to contribute to carrying costs and alleged unjust enrichment.

The court reviewed the history of litigation between the parties, including prior judgments establishing joint ownership and financial obligations.

The court found that the applicant’s failure to pay could be remedied by adjustments on sale and did not amount to malicious or oppressive conduct.

The court ordered the sale of the property under supervision, with an accounting to determine amounts owing, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for malicious prosecution.

The plaintiff had been criminally charged with harassment and dangerous driving based on reports and video evidence provided by the defendants, which charges were later stayed.

The court found that the defendants did not initiate the criminal proceedings, as the police conducted an independent investigation and exercised their own discretion.

Furthermore, even if the defendants were deemed initiators, the court found they had reasonable and probable grounds for their complaints and that malice was not the sole basis for the prosecution.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit.

The central issue was the police authority to enter private property to investigate a suspected impaired driver, specifically whether they exceeded their implied licence to knock and breached the defendant's Charter rights (sections 8 and 9).

The defence argued the police's purpose was to gather evidence and that they exceeded their authority by accessing a side entrance beyond a closed gate.

The court found that the police's purpose was to communicate and inquire, which falls within the implied licence, and that the licence extends to secondary entrances accessible to the public.

The court also found sufficient evidence to identify the defendant as the driver.

The defendant was found guilty of impaired operation, with the excess blood alcohol offence conditionally stayed.

The offender, M.A., was found guilty after a three-day trial of assaulting his then-wife, involving striking her, covering her mouth, and holding her neck, causing difficulty breathing.

The prosecution sought six months imprisonment, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors (intimate partner violence, presence of child, complainant's recent surgery, significant emotional harm) and mitigating factors (first offender, 43 years old, sole caregiver for four children, employed, volunteer work, cognitive behavioural therapy, favourable pre-sentence report, low risk to re-offend).

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, followed by 18 months probation, along with a DNA order and a five-year weapons prohibition, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while recognizing the offender's rehabilitative efforts and good character.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for partial default judgment against the defendant concerning the beneficial ownership of a residential property.

The plaintiff had provided all funds for the property's acquisition and maintenance, with legal title held by the defendant for mortgage purposes.

The defendant subsequently refused to transfer title and encumbered the property with an undisclosed line of credit.

The court, noting the defendant's default, found a resulting trust in favour of the plaintiff, declaring the plaintiff the sole beneficial owner and ordering the vesting of title.

Issues of damages and costs were adjourned.

The plaintiff landlord sued its insurer for breach of contract and bad faith after the insurer refused to pay for storm damage repairs and asbestos remediation unless the plaintiff evicted all tenants from the building.

The plaintiff incurred significant costs attempting to evict the tenants through the Landlord and Tenant Board before eventually selling the building 'as is'.

The insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding whether the insurer breached its duty of good faith by insisting on a vacant building and whether the policy's exclusion clauses applied to the eviction costs.

The accused, B.D., charged with sexual assault and sexual interference, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to alleged unreasonable delay.

The total anticipated delay from information to trial end was 793 days (approximately 26 months).

The court applied the Jordan framework, deducting periods of defence delay and delay due to exceptional circumstances (COVID-19 related administrative delay).

The court found 267 days of defence delay and 14 days of exceptional circumstances delay, resulting in a net delay of 512 days (approximately 17 months), which is below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The application was dismissed as the defence failed to establish that the delay was markedly longer than it reasonably should have been or that they took sustained efforts to expedite proceedings.

The defendant, Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CP), brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff, Aureus Solutions Inc.'s (Aureus), Statement of Claim for lack of jurisdiction, citing a forum selection clause in their Supply of Services Agreement (SSA) which granted exclusive jurisdiction to Alberta courts.

Aureus argued the clause was inapplicable as the dispute's substance predated the contract or involved fraudulent misrepresentation rendering the contract void.

The court applied the two-stage test from Z.I. Pompey Industrie v. ECU-Line N.V., finding the forum selection clause valid and enforceable.

The court ruled that allegations of fundamental breach or voidability were insufficient to provide "strong cause" to oust the clause, especially given the parties were sophisticated commercial entities.

The motion was granted, and the action dismissed.

The applicants sought to prevent the Township of Wollaston from selling a parcel of land, arguing it was subject to a charitable trust established by a will and, alternatively, that the sale was ultra vires as not properly authorized by by-law.

The court found that no charitable trust was created as certainty of intention was not met, meaning the Township held the land in fee simple.

However, the court agreed that the Township's decision to sell the property was ultra vires because it was not authorized by a specific by-law, rendering the agreement of purchase and sale null and void.

The court noted the Township could rectify this by passing a proper by-law.

Due to mixed success, no costs were awarded.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against her former landlord, a real estate agent, a paralegal, her former spouse, and the Ottawa Police Service, alleging an 'eviction scam' that resulted in the loss of her personal property.

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to strike the claim and dismiss the action.

The court granted the motions, finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the core dispute, the claims against the real estate agent were statute-barred, and the pleadings failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action against any defendant.

The action was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious against the paralegal and former spouse, and the claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The applicant sought an order declaring her sister, the respondent, a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act and a permanent injunction prohibiting further communication.

The respondent had initiated multiple unmeritorious legal proceedings against the applicant and sent numerous harassing and threatening messages over several years.

The court found the respondent's actions were intended to harass and extort the applicant.

The application was granted, the respondent was declared a vexatious litigant, and a permanent injunction was issued on consent.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for summary judgment to recover arrears of rent from the defendant commercial tenant.

The tenant argued it was relieved of its obligation to pay rent because the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting government restrictions triggered the lease's force majeure clause or frustrated the contract.

The court found that while the government restrictions triggered the force majeure clause, the clause explicitly did not excuse the tenant from paying rent.

The court also held that the doctrine of frustration did not apply because the lease did not require the tenant to operate a retail store, the disruptions were temporary, and the force majeure clause demonstrated the parties had contemplated such circumstances.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the landlord.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment after the defendants misappropriated $325,000 in investment funds and failed to defend the action.

The defendants, acting as financial advisors, repeatedly evaded requests to return the funds and provided fabricated portfolio reports.

The court granted judgment for the represented portfolio value of $345,071.45, continued a Mareva injunction, and awarded $100,000 in punitive damages due to the defendants' deceitful and callous conduct.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) and (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs, who commenced the action while residing in Ontario, were subsequently posted to Colorado due to the husband's military service.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs' move was not a free choice to avoid a costs order, and they retained exigible assets in Ontario, including an RRSP and federal wages.

The court also found the action was not frivolous or vexatious.

Kenaidan Contracting Limited and Bouygues Building Canada Inc. (BKJV) brought a motion for security for costs against Lancaster Group Inc. in a construction lien action.

The court granted leave for the motion under section 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act, finding that BKJV had demonstrated indicia of instability regarding Lancaster's financial health, supported by an Equifax report.

Lancaster failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of sufficient appropriate assets to satisfy an adverse costs order, as its claimed assets were either held by a separate, related entity or encumbered by secured creditors.

Considering the overall justice of the case, including the absence of an impecuniosity claim by Lancaster and the "soft" nature of BKJV's counterclaim, the court ordered Lancaster to pay $60,000 into court as security for costs up to the end of oral discoveries, with the possibility of further security for later stages.

The plaintiff, Kenaidan Contracting Ltd., brought a defamation claim against Lancaster Group Inc. and its officers for statements made in an open letter to the City of Hamilton and subsequent media interviews regarding alleged mismanagement of a Pan Am Games construction project and unpaid invoices.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the defamation claim.

The court found that the defendants' expressions related to a matter of public interest.

While the plaintiff's defamation claim had substantial merit, the defendants successfully demonstrated valid defences of justification and fair comment regarding the alleged mismanagement and outstanding payments.

The court also found that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was not sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression, especially considering the plaintiff's prior self-inflicted reputational damage and the nature of the allegations.

The motion to dismiss the defamation proceedings was granted.