Jonathan Paul McCauley Collings

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recover a $340,000 loan secured by a second mortgage on the defendants' home.

The defendants argued the interest rate was ambiguous, the transaction was unconscionable, and one defendant lacked independent legal advice.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no evidence that the loan was excessive or unconscionable, and noting the defendants were represented by counsel during the transaction.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding her liable for defamation after she made a false sexual assault complaint to the police against the respondent.

On appeal, she sought to introduce a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board decision as fresh evidence and argued the trial judge relied on gender stereotypes and misapplied the test for malice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer test, the trial judge properly assessed credibility based on inconsistencies rather than stereotypes, and the finding of express malice was supported by the evidence.

The plaintiff, Karen Braley operating as Blackburn Residential Services, brought a motion for production of third-party documents from Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville.

This motion was in the context of a defamation action against the defendant, Christine Harriet Johnston, concerning a complaint she allegedly made to the Society.

The Society had investigated the complaint and found no reasonable grounds.

The court granted the motion, finding the documents relevant and necessary for the defamation action, and that the defendant likely acted maliciously or without reasonable grounds, thereby losing the qualified privilege under the Child and Family Services Act.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's defamation claim against him on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant republished a defamatory email by replying to the original sender and potentially blind copying others.

The court held that replying only to the sender does not constitute publication or republication in defamation law.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to plead material facts supporting the bald allegation that the email was blind copied to third parties.

The motion was granted and the claim against the defendant was struck without leave to amend.

The minority unit owners of a commercial condominium brought an action against the majority unit owner, who also served as a director and officer, alleging oppressive conduct under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The majority owner used his voting control to direct condominium contracts and payments to a related corporation, ETRE, without declaring his conflict of interest, and charged the condominium for personal litigation and construction costs.

The court found the majority owner's conduct to be oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, and in breach of his fiduciary duties.

Due to the structural fault in the condominium's voting rights and the ongoing deadlock, the court ordered the termination of the condominium corporation under s. 128 and appointed a receiver to sell the assets.

The court also resolved various financial claims, ordering the minority to pay common expense arrears while dismissing most of the majority owner's claims for penalty charges, promissory notes, and time charges.

The applicant sought a declaration that Property Assessment Change Notices issued for the 2012 and 2013 taxation years were invalid.

The notices added the value of a newly constructed hotel to the property assessment, resulting in significant additional municipal and education taxes.

The applicant argued the assessment corporation could only issue revised assessments where an omission was inadvertent and not where the property was deliberately excluded.

The court held that the governing statute permits reassessment where property has been omitted from the tax roll regardless of the reason for the omission.

The court found the hotel had been omitted due to negligence, error, inadvertence or mistake and upheld the validity of the revised assessments.

The applicant tenant brought an application under Rule 14 for a determination of rights under a commercial lease agreement.

The court held that the tenant was not entitled to a refund of a $24,000 ex gratia payment made to the landlord.

However, the court found the landlord had no grounds to take over management of the building and charge a 15% fee.

The court also determined that under the terms of the lease, the tenant was responsible for paying the depreciation of the HVAC units and the costs of installing roof drains, as these were operating costs and not inherent structural defects.

Claims regarding a breach of the duty of good faith were dismissed.

Following a trial concerning a failed real estate transaction, the vendor sought damages for the difference between the agreed purchase price and the eventual resale price after the purchasers refused to close.

The purchasers successfully resisted the vendor’s $100,000 claim and obtained partial recovery on their counterclaim.

In this addendum and costs decision, the court determined the successful purchasers were entitled to costs under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying the fairness and reasonableness principles from appellate authority, the court fixed costs at $30,000 all-inclusive payable by the unsuccessful vendor.

The court also clarified that a $1,000 deposit held by the real estate brokerage was to be returned to the purchasers as part of the rescission of the contract.

The plaintiff, as trustee of a living trust, brought an action claiming a constructive trust over a Toronto condominium owned by the defendant, and obtained an ex parte certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The plaintiff moved to amend the claim to add the deceased's estate as a plaintiff, while the defendant moved to discharge the CPL for material non-disclosure and for security for costs.

The court allowed the amendment to add the estate, but discharged the CPL, finding the plaintiff was grossly reckless in failing to disclose the deceased's declaration of trust and will, which did not list the property.

The court also ordered the foreign plaintiff to post security for costs.

A vendor sued purchasers for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale after they refused to close on a residential property.

The purchasers discovered before closing that the property had been constructed on top of a discontinued landfill site and alleged negligent misrepresentation in the vendor’s Seller Property Information Statement (SPIS).

The court held that once a vendor completes an SPIS, the doctrine of caveat emptor does not protect misleading answers.

The vendor’s responses regarding environmental contamination and landfill activity were misleading and constituted negligent misrepresentation.

The purchasers were entitled to rescind the agreement and recover certain expenses incurred in reliance on the misrepresentation.

On a motion to amend a statement of defence and crossclaim in a nuisance and negligence action arising from alleged structural damage caused by construction dewatering and a neighbouring tree, the moving defendant sought to delete pleaded facts and add a limitations defence.

The court held that the impugned paragraphs contained material admissions helpful to the plaintiff on a central causation issue, and their deletion would cause prejudice not compensable by costs or adjournment.

However, the court permitted narrower amendments correcting an obvious error in the property reference while preserving the admissions about dewatering impacts in the vicinity.

The limitations pleading was also allowed, and no costs were awarded because success was divided.

The moving parties sought summary judgment in a shareholder oppression dispute involving a closely held home-building corporation, requesting dissolution, appointment of a receiver, and related declaratory relief.

The court held that the longstanding informal manner in which the corporation had operated formed part of the parties' reasonable expectations and that the impugned conduct, including deferred and retroactive salary payments, did not amount to oppression on the record before it.

The court found that one alleged director had not been validly elected, but that his conduct nevertheless did not constitute oppressive conduct.

Applying Rule 20 and the summary judgment framework, the court denied summary judgment, determined several factual and legal issues, remained seized, and directed further steps toward salary determinations, valuation, and a possible buyout or liquidation if no buyout occurred.

The plaintiffs in the Dewan Action brought a motion to adjourn their trial, scheduled for March 24, 2014, until after the completion of an ongoing trial in a related action (the CCC 396 Action).

The adjournment was requested because the plaintiffs intended to call an expert witness whose testimony in the CCC 396 Action had not yet been completed due to repeated delays caused by defence counsel's health issues.

The court granted the adjournment, noting that previous orders indicated the CCC 396 Action should be completed first, as its outcome would impact the Dewan Action.

The court also ordered that all summonses issued for the original trial date remain valid and subsequently set new trial dates for both actions during a case conference.

The plaintiffs and the court-appointed Administrator brought motions to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing the action.

The defendant had obtained the dismissal order ex parte on December 31, 2012, relying on a prior endorsement that required the action to be set down by December 29, 2012.

However, the defendant failed to disclose to the Registrar that the court had subsequently extended the deadline to February 28, 2013.

The court found that the defendant's failure to disclose the extension constituted a material misstatement and that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the action.

The dismissal order was set aside, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the moving parties.

During a telephone case conference, the court addressed scheduling and procedural matters relating to an upcoming motion and cross‑motion between multiple plaintiffs and a defendant acting in trust.

The court established timelines for confirming counsel’s availability, serving the defendant’s cross‑motion materials, and exchanging factums.

It also scheduled tentative hearing dates for the motion and cross‑motion and directed that argument be completed within one day.

The endorsement functions purely as a case management order facilitating the efficient progression of the litigation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to amend their statement of claim, approval of a discovery plan, and an order permitting inspection of condominium units for expert examination under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court adjourned the request to amend the statement of claim to permit further revisions.

Although Rule 29.1 obligates parties to agree upon a discovery plan without court intervention, the court imposed a discovery plan due to longstanding acrimony, extensive delay, and the absence of completed discoveries in an action commenced in 2001.

The court also granted the plaintiffs authority under Rule 32.01 to have an expert inspect specified condominium units for by-law contraventions and changes of use.

No costs were awarded due to both parties’ failure to cooperate in establishing a discovery plan.

Following a successful defamation action in which the defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defamatory statements alleged dishonesty, fraud, and untrustworthiness and were disseminated by email to numerous recipients.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were appropriate where unfounded allegations of fraud and dishonesty seriously prejudicial to reputation were advanced and maintained in pleadings.

However, the court found the amount claimed excessive given modest damages and potential duplication of work between senior and junior counsel.

Costs were fixed at a fair and reasonable all‑inclusive amount.

The plaintiff furniture retailer brought a motion for summary judgment in a defamation action arising from an email circulated by the defendant accusing the business of dishonesty and urging recipients to avoid it.

The defendant raised the defence of fair comment and advanced a counterclaim for slander based on communications made by the plaintiff to her employer and father.

The court held that the email was defamatory and that the defence of fair comment was unavailable because the statements were not on a matter of public interest, were not based on proven facts, and were motivated by malice.

The court concluded that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial and that summary judgment was appropriate.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff with damages fixed at $15,000 and the defendant’s counterclaim dismissed.