John Mather

The applicants sought a declaration that a retaining wall on their property at 41 Indian Grove encroaches onto the respondent's property at 270 Indian Road.

A 21-year encroachment agreement registered on title in 2004 permitted the encroachment to continue until July 29, 2025.

The respondent resisted the declaration on various grounds, including the age of the wall and historical use.

The court found the registered encroachment agreement valid and binding on the successor owners and declared that the retaining wall encroaches on the applicants' lands following the expiry of the agreement.

The defendants, Dentons Canada LLP and Philip Rimer, brought a third-party claim against various individuals and entities, including other lawyers and advisors, seeking contribution and indemnity in a professional negligence action.

The third parties brought Rule 21 motions to strike the third-party claim, arguing that they acted as agents for the plaintiff and therefore any negligence on their part would be attributable to the plaintiff, precluding a third-party claim.

The court struck the claims against one director (Wang) and the escrow agent, finding them doomed to fail based on agency and contractual principles.

However, the court allowed the claims against the other third-party advisors and lawyers to proceed, finding that they fell into a category of non-agency advisory roles where the plaintiff might not be held contributorily responsible for their actions.

Leave to amend was granted to particularize the claims against certain third parties.

The respondents, who were largely successful in defending a shareholder oppression application, sought costs including substantial indemnity costs from the date of an offer to settle.

The court found that the offer to settle did not trigger Rule 49 consequences because it omitted the applicant's statutory right to audited financial statements, an issue on which the applicant was successful.

The court awarded the respondents partial indemnity costs, reduced by 25% to reflect the applicant's partial success, fixing costs at $75,000.

The applicant, a 40% shareholder in a holding company (Pazkaz) that owns shares in a start-up (Rave), brought an oppression application under section 248 of the OBCA.

He alleged improper share dilution and mischaracterization of contributions as equity instead of loans, seeking various remedies including a buyout, conversion of equity to loans, removal of directors, or forced sale/winding up.

The court dismissed most of the applicant's claims, finding no unfair prejudice or oppression regarding share dilution or loan characterization, as the companies issued shares commensurate with investments and there was no evidence of misappropriation.

However, the court granted the applicant's request for audited financial statements for both Pazkaz and Rave, affirming a shareholder's statutory right to such information.

Kristine Jill Hill was found in contempt of a June 28, 2017 order.

This endorsement addresses the sentencing, which included a joint submission, and the quantum of full indemnity costs to be paid by Ms. Hill as part of her sentence.

The court considered principles of reasonableness, indemnity, and factors under Rule 57.01 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found the matter complex, noted unnecessary steps taken by the defendants, and ultimately awarded the plaintiffs the requested costs of $320,899.64.

An insured brought an action against international insurers for breach of an insurance contract.

The insurers moved to stay the action and refer the dispute to arbitration in London, England pursuant to an arbitration clause in the policy.

The motion judge dismissed the stay motion, finding that the "Action Against Insurer" endorsement provided an alternative method of dispute resolution allowing domestic court proceedings.

The appellate court reversed, holding that the arbitration clause was mandatory and the sole method of dispute resolution, and that the "Action Against Insurer" clause was a service of suit provision that did not conflict with the arbitration clause.

The court also clarified that the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration applies to agreements providing for arbitration of certain disputes, not only those providing for arbitration as the sole method of dispute resolution.

This decision concerns a costs award following the dismissal of the applicant's constitutional challenge to sections of the Insurance Act.

The court had previously found the applicant lacked standing and that the challenge failed on its merits.

The applicant argued for no costs, citing public interest, or a reduced award based on public sector salaries of Crown counsel.

The court rejected both arguments, stating that the litigation was speculative and without merit, and that costs for Crown lawyers are not reduced due to their salaried status.

The court fixed costs at $50,000, payable by the applicant to the Province of Ontario, which represented approximately one-third of a reasonable claim.

The defendants, having been entirely successful, sought partial indemnity costs of $65,981.09.

The court found the plaintiff's claim improper and vexatious, constituting a collateral attack on prior Italian and Ontario enforcement judgments.

The court accepted the defendants' claimed time and hourly rates, finding minor duplication between senior and junior counsel necessary and not warranting a discount.

The court deemed the defendants' overall costs claim reasonable and within the reasonable expectations of the parties, fixing costs at $65,981.09, payable by the plaintiff.

The applicant, a personal injury lawyer, challenged the constitutionality of sections 267.5(1) and 280 of the Insurance Act, which limit pre-trial recovery of lost income and grant sole jurisdiction to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule disputes, respectively.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant lacked both private and public interest standing.

On the merits, the court found no breach of sections 15(1) or 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor a violation of section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as the impugned provisions did not create distinctions based on prohibited grounds, deprive individuals of life, liberty, or security of the person, or usurp superior court jurisdiction for a novel area of law.

The plaintiff, Gregory King, brought claims against Italian lawyers and their firm (the Italian Defendants) alleging conflict of interest and misconduct in prior Italian legal proceedings that resulted in a judgment against King.

The Italian Defendants moved to dismiss King's claims for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter and, alternatively, on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The court found no real and substantial connection between King's claims and Ontario, as the alleged conduct occurred in Italy, the defendants did not carry on business in Ontario, and any related contract was primarily Italian.

The court also determined that Italy was clearly the more convenient forum, given the location of witnesses, applicable Italian law, and the desirability of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions.

Consequently, the court dismissed King's entire action against the Italian Defendants.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's action based on a mandatory arbitration clause in the base trade credit insurance policy.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, relying on a Canadian endorsement that permitted an action against the insurer in Canada and stated that endorsements prevail in the event of a conflict.

The court found that the contract, read as a whole, provided alternative methods for dispute resolution and that the endorsement prevailed over the base policy's arbitration clause.

The motion to stay the action was dismissed.