Jonathan Lyon Mendes Miller

The applicant sought an order validating a draft will pursuant to s. 21.1(1) of the Succession Law Reform Act on behalf of a deceased who died of a sudden heart attack twelve days after the draft was prepared, before it was signed or witnessed.

The court found that while the deceased had capacity and clear general intentions to benefit the applicant and others over his estranged siblings, the applicant failed to establish that the draft will reflected a deliberate or fixed and final expression of testamentary intention.

There was no evidence the deceased had reviewed the draft, the deadline for suggested corrections had not expired at the time of death, and discrepancies existed between the draft and the deceased's earlier handwritten notes.

The application was dismissed; costs submissions were invited but the court noted the estate may appropriately bear the successful respondent's costs given the reasonable grounds for bringing the application.

The plaintiff, a Paraguayan pension fund, brought a motion seeking a declaration of contempt against the defendants for failing to comply with a previous fraud judgment and non-dissipation order, and various ancillary orders compelling accounting, asset transfers, and examinations in aid of execution.

The court declined to find the defendants in contempt due to the high evidentiary threshold but granted most of the other relief sought, ordering the defendants to provide a full accounting of defrauded funds, sell a property in Guatemala and transfer the proceeds, provide tax returns, cease defamatory statements, pay outstanding costs, and re-attend examinations.

The request to examine the defendants' daughter was denied without prejudice.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent, without-notice motion for a Mareva injunction and Norwich order against the defendants, alleging a fraudulent investment scheme.

The defendants, including Richard Nicholson and his company NWR Financial Group, allegedly induced the plaintiffs to invest USD $670,000 in a non-existent hedge fund, Legacy Investors Group Inc., promising high returns.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, evidence of asset dissipation by Nicholson (e.g., luxury purchases, sale of home), and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction to preserve assets.

The court also granted the Norwich order, finding that the five factors for disclosure from non-party financial institutions were met, as they were the only practical source of information regarding the flow of funds.

The applicant father brought a contempt motion against the respondent mother for her failure to comply with a November 2, 2022, court order regarding the resumption of his parenting time with their daughter.

The daughter, now eleven, resisted visits, and the mother's efforts to facilitate them were deemed insufficient.

The court found the mother in contempt, emphasizing the parental duty to encourage the child's relationship with the other parent and rejecting the child's reluctance as a valid excuse for non-compliance.

This motion involved cross-applications concerning pleadings amendments and disclosure of settlement minutes in a professional negligence action against a solicitor.

The plaintiffs sought to amend their statement of claim to limit damages to the defendant's proportionate share of fault.

The defendant sought production of confidential settlement minutes from related estate litigation, arguing their relevance to damages and the ability to defend the claim, and also sought leave to add third parties and amend his statement of defence.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their claim.

Crucially, the court ordered the disclosure of the settlement minutes, finding them relevant to the assessment of damages and that the public interest in a fair trial and preventing overcompensation outweighed the interest in settlement confidentiality, especially given the confidentiality clause allowed disclosure by court order.

The court also granted the defendant leave to amend his statement of defence.

Daniella Leis pleaded guilty to four counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm following a collision that severed a gas line, leading to a massive explosion in a residential area and serious injuries to four first responders.

The court considered aggravating factors, including high blood alcohol concentration and dangerous driving, and mitigating factors, such as her guilty plea, lack of prior record, and Indigenous background (Gladue factors).

The judge balanced the need for denunciation and general deterrence with the offender's personal circumstances and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incarceration conditions.

A three-year penitentiary sentence was imposed, along with a three-year driving prohibition.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his application to remove a writ of seizure and sale filed by a law firm against the matrimonial home.

The law firm had represented the appellant's wife in matrimonial litigation and obtained judgment for outstanding fees.

The appellant argued the writ constituted an encumbrance requiring his consent under section 21 of the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the wife did not encumber the matrimonial home; rather, the law firm, as an arm's length creditor, was entitled to file the writ.

The appellant's interest in the home remains subject to the writ.

This decision re-evaluates a costs award following a successful appeal by the defendant that significantly reduced the plaintiff's damages in a wrongful dismissal case.

The defendant argued that their earlier offer to settle, which included "statutory deductions" without specificity, should trigger Rule 49 cost consequences as the plaintiff's final recovery was less than the offer.

The court found the offer too ambiguous to meet Rule 49's strictures.

It also dismissed arguments regarding fresh evidence of a counsel agreement and the application of Simplified Procedure rules due to the action's commencement date.

Applying Rule 57.01, the court determined that despite the plaintiff's limited success on major claims, the overall results were mixed, leading to an order that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant sought to lift a Writ of Execution filed by the respondent's former lawyers (Farrell & Boyle, represented by Elissa Boyle) against the respondent Meagan McKenney's interest in the matrimonial home.

The applicant argued the writ was an invalid encumbrance under s. 21(1) of the Family Law Act because he, as the spouse, did not consent to its filing.

The court found that Farrell & Boyle, having ceased to represent Ms. McKenney, were acting at arm's length when they obtained the judgment and filed the writ.

Consequently, the writ was not considered an encumbrance within the meaning of s. 21(1) of the Act, and spousal consent was not required.

The court also determined that Farrell & Boyle's interest, secured by the writ, had priority over the applicant's interest, which had not vested prior to the writ's filing.

The applicant's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

An appeal and cross-appeal from a wrongful dismissal judgment.

The trial judge found the appellant, an institutional equity salesperson, was constructively dismissed and awarded 11 months' pay in lieu of notice totalling $240,313.79 (net $137,055.54), including base salary, performance bonus, and shareholders' bonus.

The appellant appealed the calculation of her performance bonus; the respondent cross-appealed on mitigation, notice period, shareholders' bonus entitlement, and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but allowed the cross-appeal in part, finding the appellant was not entitled to shareholders' bonus damages as her shares were redeemed upon termination of employment.

The net damages award was reduced to $57,262.96, and costs were remitted to the trial judge for recalculation.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm committed during a recreational no-contact hockey game.

The accused, a goalie, struck another player in the face with his stick after being contacted in the crease, causing serious injuries including a fractured jaw, dental damage, and concussion.

The court imposed a 90-day conditional sentence with two years probation and a prohibition on playing hockey, rejecting both a discharge and incarceration.

The court distinguished between professional and recreational leagues, finding that recreational players do not consent to the same level of violence as professional athletes.

Fabiene Evans, a chartered accountant and institutional equity salesperson, was constructively dismissed by Paradigm Capital Inc. after being offered a significantly altered role with reduced responsibilities and uncertain compensation following her breast cancer diagnosis and return to work.

The court found that Evans was not obligated to accept the revised role as mitigation due to its ill-defined nature, uncertain compensation, and the potential for humiliation and loss of dignity.

The court set the reasonable notice period at 11 months and awarded damages for lost salary, performance bonuses, and shareholder bonuses during this period.

The plaintiff's claim for bad faith in the historical calculation of bonuses was rejected, as the employer's compensation process was found to be fair and reasonable.

The defendant lottery authority brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing an action in which the plaintiff alleged he was deprived of a $1 million instant lottery prize after leaving a purported winning ticket with a retailer clerk.

The plaintiff asserted breach of contract against the lottery authority and discontinued claims against the retailer defendants.

The court held that under the rules of the lottery game, a claimant must present the winning ticket to claim a prize and that a lost or stolen ticket is void unless the authority exercises its discretion to accept it.

The authority had conducted investigations and reasonably declined to exercise that discretion, and there was no evidence supporting the allegation that the retailer stole a winning ticket.

In any event, the action was statute‑barred under the applicable limitation periods.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the claim.