John E. MacDonell

This endorsement addresses a proposed consent order for a class action settlement between the plaintiff and the Sault Area Hospital.

The court convened a teleconference to ensure the order allowed for consideration of written objections from class members.

The order mandates the hospital to provide class member information, followed by notice distribution and a 30-day period for objections.

The court found the proposed settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, weighing the claim's nature, litigation risks and costs, class size, and potential recoveries, with reference to *Jones v. Tsige*.

The order is to take effect 90 days after being made, unless a written objection necessitates a settlement hearing.

The appellants, Erica Leslie and Grip Fast Strategies Corp., appealed a lower court order dismissing their action against Stavros Daskos and an order for security for costs.

The respondents, Encanto Potash Trading Corporation, Encanto Potash Corp., and Stavros Daskos, cross-appealed the refusal to grant summary judgment dismissing the claim against Encanto Potash Corp. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against Mr. Daskos, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding his personal liability or guarantee.

The interlocutory appeals (security for costs and the cross-appeal regarding summary judgment against Encanto) were quashed as they were not integral to the final order appeal, and thus the court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' pleadings or for summary judgment dismissing the claim for unpaid consulting invoices, and alternatively sought security for costs from the corporate plaintiff.

The court declined to strike the pleadings but granted partial summary judgment, dismissing the claims against the individual defendant and one corporate defendant as they were not parties to the consulting agreement.

The claims against the main corporate defendant were directed to trial.

The court also ordered the corporate plaintiff to post security for costs in installments, finding it lacked sufficient assets in Ontario.

The plaintiff sought critical illness insurance benefits after being diagnosed with cancer, two months after he had requested cancellation of his policy.

Both parties moved for summary judgment.

The court found that the policy unambiguously required a diagnosis to occur while coverage was in force.

Since the diagnosis occurred after the policy was cancelled due to the plaintiff's own initiative and non-payment of premiums, there was no coverage.

The court also denied relief from forfeiture, as the policy had terminated due to non-payment, not a breach, and thus no property was forfeited.

The plaintiff's motion was dismissed, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

On a motion for default judgment, the court held the former intimate partner liable for repeated assault and battery and for publicly disclosing a sexually explicit video of the plaintiff without her consent.

The court also held the former partner's parents liable in negligence under the Occupier's Liability Act for failing to take reasonable steps to protect the plaintiff from foreseeable abuse occurring in their home.

The court expressly recognized in Ontario the tort of public disclosure of private facts and applied it to non-consensual online publication of an intimate video.

General, aggravated, and punitive damages were awarded, together with injunctive relief requiring destruction of intimate materials and prohibiting further disclosure.

The applicants, Ahmed Abou-Gabal and Velika Realty Inc., brought a motion seeking certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against properties owned by Jovalyn and Derian Tuitt.

The applicants' counterclaim referenced alleged mortgages and defaults but did not explicitly claim an interest in land or seek remedies like foreclosure or sale.

The court found that the counterclaim, as pleaded, did not establish an interest in land in question, which is a prerequisite for issuing a CPL.

Furthermore, the court noted that even if an interest in land had been established, the properties were not unique, and damages would likely be an adequate remedy, which would also weigh against granting a CPL.

The motion for CPLs was dismissed.

The appellants purchased a rural property in late 2009 and subsequently discovered that an adjoining property had an option to purchase registered in favor of a solar farm company.

The appellants claimed they would not have purchased the property had they known of this option.

They sought damages from the respondent, a real estate professional, for negligence.

The motion judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the two-year limitation period had expired before the claim was instituted.

The appellants appealed, arguing the limitation period did not begin to run until construction of the solar farm commenced in February 2013.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the appellants discovered their cause of action by February 2010 when they learned of the solar farm option and its negative impact on property value.

Following a summary judgment dismissing the claim against the individual defendants and a corporate defendant, and the dismissal of the defendants' motion for security for costs, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that the individual defendants defeated the claim by reviving a corporate defendant late in the proceedings, making them liable for the plaintiff's thrown-away costs.

However, the defendants were successful on their summary judgment motion.

Balancing the relative success and the respective costs incurred, the court ordered that the costs be set off against each other, resulting in no order as to costs.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against the individual defendants and a related corporate entity, and sought security for costs.

The plaintiff's action sought to enforce an arbitral award against a corporation that was discovered to have been dissolved, prompting claims against its principals.

The court found no cause of action pleaded against the related corporate entity.

Because the primary corporate defendant was recently revived under the Canada Business Corporations Act, its acts during dissolution were cured, negating the basis for personal liability against the individual defendants.

The court dismissed the action against the individuals and the related corporation, but denied the defendants' request for security for costs as inequitable.

Following a judgment in favour of the defendant, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The plaintiffs argued no costs should be ordered because they were relatively successful at case conferences and the case was precedent-setting regarding the recognition of a Sharia Law arbitration decision.

The court found that while the litigation was not completely unfounded, the defendant was entirely successful at trial and awarded partial indemnity costs of $53,116.82.

The defendant brought a motion seeking to apply the doctrine of res judicata to an arbitral award rendered under Sharia Law in Qom, Iran, which had addressed a dispute over the distribution of proceeds from a jointly owned property in Lebanon.

The plaintiffs, who initiated the Ontario proceedings, argued the arbitration was merely advisory.

The court found that the arbitration was a binding judicial decision by a competent jurisdiction, meeting the preconditions for issue estoppel.

It dismissed the plaintiffs' statement of claim, concluding that the dispute had been finally resolved by the arbitrator and that the International Commercial Arbitration Act's time limits for challenging an award had passed, with no "real unfairness" warranting setting it aside.