John W. Bruggeman

The defendant bank moved for summary judgment to dismiss an action brought by a former lawyer seeking $10,000,000 in damages for the revocation of his law license and criminal conviction for fraud.

The plaintiff alleged that the bank's negligent administration of his trust account, specifically double-debiting certified cheques, caused a shortfall that prevented a real estate transaction from closing, which triggered a Law Society investigation and ultimately led to his license revocation and criminal conviction.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff's license revocation and conviction were caused by his own misappropriation of trust funds, not by the bank's double-debits.

The investigation was initiated by a complaint from the plaintiff's former law clerk regarding unauthorized transfers from the trust account, not by the failed transaction.

The court found no causal link between the bank's conduct and the damages claimed.

The applicants, private lenders, sought rectification of the land register or re-registration of two discharged second mortgages after a failed real estate closing.

The court found that the applicants had received full payment and voluntarily returned the discharge funds to trust, and that there was no basis in law or equity to grant rectification or re-registration.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent husband, M.D., brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce an alleged settlement agreement in a family law proceeding, which the applicant wife, N.C., disputed.

The court examined whether a binding agreement had been reached, specifically focusing on two essential terms: an indemnity clause and a $350,000 credit clause.

The court found that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the question of whether a binding deal existed, concluding that there was no meeting of the minds on all essential terms from the perspective of a reasonable observer.

Consequently, the husband's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The husband appealed two spousal support orders made after trial, challenging the quantification of ongoing, lump sum catch-up, and retroactive support, as well as the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the trial judge's discretionary decisions regarding income imputation, retroactive support start date, occupation rent, and calculation methods.

The court found no reversible error of law or material error of fact, emphasizing the narrow scope of appellate review in family law matters.

The applicant wife sought an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, with proceeds paid into court.

The respondent husband opposed, arguing that an interim sale would prejudice his substantive rights under the Family Law Act or that the motion was malicious, vexatious, or oppressive.

The court found that the sale would not prejudice the husband's substantive rights, as his financial interests would be protected by payment into court, and a potential vesting order was too remote.

The court also determined the motion was not vexatious or malicious, noting the wife had sought the sale since 2019 and that it moved the parties closer to resolution.

The motion for sale was granted, with specific terms for listing and sale.

The plaintiffs sought leave to issue certificates of pending litigation against three investment properties and an order to preserve the proceeds of sale of a fourth property.

The properties were transferred pursuant to a complex butterfly transaction.

The court found that while there might be a triable issue, the equities did not favour granting the relief.

The plaintiff's evidence was misleading, damages would be an adequate remedy, and the issues were better suited for family law proceedings.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial decision concerning spousal support, equalization payment, imputation of income, and the dismissal of a fresh evidence motion.

The respondent cross-appealed regarding an error in the equalization calculation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal on all five grounds, affirming the trial judge's decisions on interpreter competency, lump sum child support, income imputation, spousal support, and the refusal to admit fresh evidence.

The court allowed the respondent's cross-appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by not deducting the value of a date of marriage asset from the respondent's net family property in the equalization calculations, leading to an increased equalization payment owed by the appellant.

In the context of a motion to change a final support order, the parties brought cross-motions.

The mother sought additional financial disclosure regarding the father's corporate income, while the father sought a retroactive reduction in child support because the eldest child had moved in with him.

The court struck portions of the mother's affidavit as irrelevant, ordered the father to provide most of the requested financial disclosure to allow the mother's expert to assess his income, and granted the father's request to retroactively reduce his child support obligation and require the mother to pay support for the eldest child.

The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company, as guardian of property for Asha Kumra, sought advice and direction from the court regarding whether Minutes of Settlement, entered into by Asha's sons Sanjiv and Rajiv Kumra, were binding on the guardian and precluded it from pursuing claims related to property transfers made by Asha prior to a one-year limitation period specified in the Minutes.

The court found that the Minutes were not binding on Scotiatrust or Asha Kumra, as neither was a party to the agreement, nor was Asha legally represented during its negotiation.

Consequently, Scotiatrust retains the discretion to pursue claims in Asha Kumra's best interests, irrespective of the limitation period in the Minutes.

The Applicant sought a Mareva injunction and a non-depletion order against her deceased husband (Respondent) and an added party (his extramarital partner) to freeze assets allegedly transferred to frustrate an equalization claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that no order could be issued against the deceased respondent due to the stay of proceedings, and that the Mareva injunction failed because the added party had no assets in Ontario, the assets were already dissipated outside the jurisdiction, and the applicant failed to provide an undertaking as to damages.

The non-depletion order under the Family Law Act also failed as it cannot enjoin property of strangers to the family law action and the applicant did not establish a trust.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for damages arising from a slip and fall on a stairway.

The plaintiff fell while carrying a large basket down the stairs at a home owned by the co-defendant, where the moving defendant frequently stayed.

The court found genuine issues for trial regarding whether the moving defendant was an 'occupier' under the Occupiers' Liability Act and whether she breached a duty of care by instructing the plaintiff to carry the basket downstairs.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's finding that advancements of funds from his father totalling $157,414 were gifts rather than loans.

The advancements were invested in the matrimonial home held in the appellant's name.

The characterization of these funds as gifts or loans directly affected the calculation of the appellant's net family property in the family law proceeding.

The trial judge found the advancements were gifts and therefore included in the appellant's net family property.

The appellant argued the trial judge reversed the burden of proof and erred in fact and law.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no reversals of the burden of proof and no palpable and overriding errors in the evaluation of evidence.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside the registration of a child support order made by a Polish court.

The order had been obtained by the applicant without notice to the respondent while he was in Ontario with a custody order.

The court found all three grounds for setting aside the registration were satisfied: the respondent lacked proper notice and opportunity to be heard, the order was contrary to public policy given the applicant's abduction of the child and contempt of Ontario court orders, and the Polish court lacked jurisdiction.

The deemed application for child support was dismissed, and the applicant was prohibited from commencing further proceedings in Ontario without purging her contempt or obtaining leave of court.

Costs were awarded on a full recovery basis due to the applicant's bad faith conduct.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her actions by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not have a complete picture of the facts and circumstances when dismissing the case.

The appellant, a self-represented litigant with language issues, was non-compliant with a trial management order at the time set for trial, and her main liability witness (her brother) had been recently injured and hospitalized in Ecuador.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, set aside the trial judge's orders, and directed the appellant to bring a motion within 60 days before a Superior Court judge to demonstrate why the matters should proceed, on a more fulsome record including medical evidence.

The defendants, a dentist and an oral surgeon, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for dental malpractice and battery.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants extracted the wrong tooth.

The court found that the case turned heavily on the credibility of the parties, particularly the plaintiff, and that the documentary record alone was insufficient to resolve the factual disputes.

Applying the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court concluded that a full trial was not necessary but that oral evidence was required.

The court ordered an abbreviated summary trial under Rule 20.05 to determine the specific factual disputes and damages.

Following a family law motion concerning unanswered undertakings and further questioning, the court addressed competing claims for costs.

The respondent husband sought full recovery costs, alleging the applicant’s failure to comply with disclosure timelines and undertakings required by a prior case management order.

The court found the motion was necessary to compel compliance with several undertakings and that the respondent was more successful, but rejected allegations of bad faith sufficient to justify full recovery costs under the Family Law Rules.

Applying principles of fairness and reasonableness in assessing costs, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action alleging that a paediatrician breached the standard of care by failing to conduct follow‑up glucose testing and refer a child to an endocrinologist after a hypoglycaemic episode.

They argued that earlier investigation would have led to a diagnosis of panhypopituitarism and prevented a later hypoglycaemic seizure causing permanent brain injury.

The court considered conflicting expert evidence regarding the appropriate standard of care for paediatricians and whether a single episode of hypoglycaemia required referral or further testing.

The court preferred the evidence of defence experts that the episode was transient and that further investigation was not required absent recurring symptoms.

It also found the plaintiffs failed to establish causation, as it was speculative whether earlier referral would have prevented the later seizure.

The applicant mother sought directions concerning the implementation of a prior order governing her access to the parties’ child.

The dispute arose after the child resisted access and the respondent father unilaterally enrolled the child in a different school, making access more difficult.

The court emphasized the need to comply with a prior order directing counselling and a mini‑assessment under s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act by a child psychiatrist to determine the source of the child’s resistance and his preferences regarding residence and schooling.

The court ordered the resumption of the mother’s access and directed both parties to immediately arrange the assessment and cooperate in providing information regarding schooling options.

A contested passing of accounts involving a guardian of property appointed to manage the finances of an incapacitated parent.

The applicant challenged substantial cash withdrawals and legal expenses claimed by the guardian.

The court found the accounts wholly inadequate and concluded that the guardian had improperly withdrawn more than $120,000 from the estate and failed to maintain proper records or explanations.

The court rejected post‑hearing attempts to introduce new evidence and denied the guardian any compensation.

The guardian was ordered to repay the improperly withdrawn funds and personally pay the applicant’s costs.