Jordan Conway

The plaintiff moved to not enter judgment in accordance with a jury verdict that dismissed his personal injury and racial profiling claims arising from an arrest by mall security for trespassing.

The plaintiff argued there was no evidence to support the jury's findings that the defendants had reasonable grounds to arrest him, did not use racial stereotypes, used reasonable force, and that he suffered no damages.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants led 'some evidence' on each issue, including expert testimony on use of force and medical causation, which the jury was entitled to accept.

Judgment was ordered to be entered in accordance with the jury's verdict.

The moving party brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by the responding party in support of a motion for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.

The affidavit, sworn by the owner of the responding party's autobody shop, purported to demonstrate the systemic implications of the Divisional Court's interpretation on independent repair shops and policyholders.

The motion judge found the affidavit was replete with argument and opinion rather than proper factual evidence, relying on anecdotal assertions rather than statistical or corroborating data.

The affidavit was struck in its entirety, and the responding party was directed to file a fresh factum with references to the affidavit removed.

Two Simplified Rules lawsuits arose from a failed commercial real estate transaction.

The vendor refused to close, alleging the transaction was an illegal contract because the purchaser made an additional $25,000 cash payment to the vendor's principal to offset capital gains.

The court found the vendor's principal orchestrated the cash payment to extract a higher price and used the illegality argument as a pretext to avoid closing.

The court held the transaction was not illegal and the purchaser was ready, willing, and able to close.

The plaintiffs were awarded damages for the lost real estate commission and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in anticipation of closing.

The appellants appealed an order declaring them vexatious litigants under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The application judge found the respondent had standing and applied the Lang Michener test, noting the appellants' history of meritless litigation against a former client who is a party under a disability.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error and dismissed the appeal, confirming the vexatious litigant order applies to the appellants in their personal capacity.

The decision addresses a motion regarding undertakings in a civil dispute between the West Niagara Baseball Association and its representatives, and several baseball associations and their representatives.

The plaintiffs sought orders compelling the defendants to provide further and unredacted answers to undertakings given on discovery, particularly regarding complaints made by parents that led to the plaintiffs’ suspension from operating a baseball league.

The court ordered the defendants to provide unredacted answers to certain undertakings and to make diligent efforts to contact a third party for information, but otherwise dismissed the motion.

The applicant, Jerzy Szot, sought an order under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act declaring the respondents, Peter B. Cozzi and his professional corporation, to be vexatious litigants.

The application arose from a lengthy and complex litigation history involving Mr. Cozzi’s repeated attempts to access insurance proceeds and fees in relation to a former client, Mr. Nguyen, a party under disability.

The court found that Mr. Cozzi’s conduct, including relitigating settled issues, failing to pay costs orders, and acting against a vulnerable party, was vexatious and an abuse of process.

The court granted the order, prohibiting the respondents from instituting or continuing proceedings without leave.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his personal injury action, which was found to be statute-barred due to the two-year limitation period.

The motion judge concluded that the appellant's injuries were discoverable well within the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's application of discoverability principles under the Limitations Act and the threshold for serious and permanent impairment under the Insurance Act.

The Court clarified that formal medical opinions required for a threshold motion are not necessary to trigger the limitation period.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for a roofing contract dispute.

The appellant argued the trial was procedurally unfair due to the deputy judge's frequent interventions and comments, which gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the deputy judge's well-intended activism became a reversible error by taking over the trial and improperly limiting the self-represented appellant's cross-examination.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered before a different deputy judge.

The accused was charged with assault and careless storage of firearms.

The assault charge was dismissed when the alleged victim did not testify and evidence suggested the accused was the victim.

The court found the accused guilty of careless storage of firearms under section 86(1) of the Criminal Code.

The firearms were stored on an accessible rack in an unlocked shack with ammunition nearby and no trigger locks, constituting a marked departure from the applicable standard of care under the Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations.