Joseph W. Irving

The plaintiffs brought a motion to have the defendant found in contempt of court for failing to comply with multiple court orders, including orders to provide an accounting and attend judgment debtor examinations.

The defendant admitted to eight counts of civil contempt, including egregiously lying to the court about his father's death to avoid a court appearance.

The court found the defendant in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and sentenced him to a 76-day intermittent custodial sentence, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence and denunciation.

The defendant was also ordered to pay $50,000 in costs.

The Landlord brought a summary judgment motion to terminate the lease of Michele’s Italian Ristorante Inc. due to multiple breaches, including non-payment of rent, failure to remedy fire code deficiencies, and unsatisfactory breakfast service.

Ristorante brought a cross-motion for relief from forfeiture and lease renewal, alleging the Landlord caused its cash flow problems.

The court granted the Landlord's motion, finding Ristorante's breaches serious and deliberate, and dismissed Ristorante's action and cross-motion, concluding there were no grounds for equitable relief from forfeiture.

The appellant appealed a committal order under the Extradition Act, arguing the committal judge erred in refusing to order particulars of the conspiracy in the authority to proceed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the authority to proceed complied with s. 15(3)(c) of the Extradition Act, which does not require the Minister of Justice to provide particulars of the corresponding Canadian offences.

The appellants appealed an order appointing a supervisor/receiver for their restaurant business and adding them as respondents in the proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge had a reasonable basis to appoint a supervisor to preserve and value the business, given unanswered allegations of fraud and apparent contravention of an earlier order in oppression proceedings.

The court noted the motion judge remained seized of the matter for further directions.

The applicants brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against former directors of a religious corporation who continued to act as directors and authorized significant payments after a consent court order replaced them.

The court found the respondents knowingly acted contrary to the order by signing cheques and authorizing approximately $135,000 in corporate disbursements after they were no longer directors, including payments after an additional order expressly prohibiting removal of funds.

Applying the established three-part test for civil contempt, the court held the order was clear, the conduct deliberate, and the breach proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court declined to order repayment of the funds due to practical enforcement and litigation considerations but imposed penalties and costs.

In an ongoing governance dispute concerning a Gurdwara, the case management judge issued directions regarding multiple related proceedings.

The court granted the current board of directors leave to commence an action against former directors for costs previously paid to a law firm, and permitted a third-party claim against the law firm.

The court also stayed a related small claims action and a costs assessment proceeding pending a peremptory case management conference to determine how all related matters should be adjudicated.

In a case management endorsement concerning governance disputes over a Gurdwara, the court granted leave for the corporation to commence an action against former directors for costs paid to a law firm, and for the former directors to bring a third-party claim against the law firm.

The court also stayed related small claims and costs assessment proceedings pending a further case management conference to determine whether the court should assume case management responsibility over all related matters.

Members of a religious community incorporated under the Corporations Act disputed control of the corporation administering their temple.

After a consent order established a three-person board, the applicants sought recognition of two additional directors allegedly appointed by the community's spiritual leader and invalidation of steps taken by the existing board.

The court held that the evidence of the alleged appointments was inadmissible and unreliable hearsay, and in any event the consent order circumscribed any authority to appoint additional directors pending an annual members meeting.

The application was dismissed, and the matter was directed into case management with related proceedings.

In a shareholder oppression dispute involving the transfer of a restaurant business into related corporations after an earlier court order, the responding party commenced a second application while an appeal from an interlocutory order remained pending.

The moving respondents sought a stay, conversion to an action, security for costs, and substantial indemnity costs.

The court declined to grant that relief immediately and instead adjourned the motion until after the Divisional Court appeal, while imposing preservation and non-disposition terms to protect the responding party's interests.

Costs were reserved.

Following trial in a dispute over money owed from the purchase of a restaurant, the successful plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs based on delay and aggressive cross-examination.

The court held that costs generally follow the event on a partial indemnity basis and that no special circumstances justified elevated costs.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed the matter globally, considered complexity, divided success, proportionality, and reasonable hourly rates, and fixed costs against one defendant only.

Partial indemnity costs of $22,687.16, inclusive of HST and disbursements, were awarded, together with pre-judgment interest from October 3, 2014.

The applicant requested an order to amend her human rights application to provide more information about her teaching background, additional facts regarding contact during her maternity leave, and to request public interest remedies.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondent as the amendments only provided a fuller explanation of the existing discrimination allegations and added public interest remedies.

The plaintiff sold a restaurant business to the defendant father, who negotiated the purchase and signed the agreement.

The father later stopped making payments, leaving a balance of $30,000.

The plaintiff sued the father, his son, and the son's corporation for the balance.

The court found that the father acted on his own behalf and did not have ostensible authority to bind his son or the corporation, dismissing the claims against them.

The father was ordered to pay the outstanding balance, subject to a $4,500 set-off for a leased dishwasher that the plaintiff had misrepresented as an owned asset.

The plaintiff brought an action against her father for sexual assault, sexual battery, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from events during her childhood and adolescence.

The court found that the father committed battery by shaving her pubic hair for a plaster cast, breached his fiduciary duty by requiring her to model nude after puberty, and sexually assaulted her at a family cottage.

The court awarded $180,000 in non-pecuniary damages (including aggravated and punitive damages) and $495,000 for past and future loss of income, applying a robust and pragmatic approach to causation given the plaintiff's pre-existing psychological vulnerabilities.

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to refuse its application for a liquor licence.

The sole director of the Applicant was previously the manager of another establishment that had its licence suspended multiple times and ultimately revoked for permitting drunkenness, removing liquor, and allowing a drug transaction.

The Tribunal found that the director's past conduct and failure to ensure compliance at the previous establishment afforded reasonable grounds to believe the Applicant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal refusing the licence.

The Crown applied for the forfeiture of personal property bearing the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club (HAMC) insignia seized from the residences of individual members and the Toronto clubhouse, arguing it was offence-related property under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The individual respondents had been convicted of various drug trafficking offences.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while membership in the HAMC facilitated the drug transactions by providing a trustworthy network, the physical items bearing the insignia were not used to commit the offences, nor was it proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they were intended to be used for such purposes.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the liquor licence of the respondent after finding that the licensee permitted the sale or distribution of a narcotic on the premises.

The licensee had a lengthy history of infractions and suspensions.

The Board found that the licensee showed a recklessly cavalier attitude to the law and public safety, and that previous suspensions had not worked as a deterrent.

The Board ordered the immediate revocation of the liquor licence.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the liquor licence of Ross Bar & Grill Inc., alleging that the licensee permitted the sale and distribution of illegal drugs on the premises contrary to s. 45(2) of O. Reg. 719/90.

An undercover police officer purchased crack cocaine in the establishment in a blatant transaction that took only nine minutes, during which staff made no attempt to serve him food or alcohol.

The Board found the police evidence credible and concluded that the manager was wilfully blind and insufficiently vigilant, thereby 'permitting' the illegal activity.

The Board found the contravention occurred and invited written submissions on the appropriate penalty.

The appellants appealed an order striking out their statement of claim without leave to amend.

The claim alleged conspiracy to injure and abuse of process by the police and government defendants in relation to an investigation targeting the adult entertainment industry.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge took an overly technical approach and that the material facts pleaded were reasonably capable of supporting the causes of action.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the activity in the VIP room of his business did not exceed the community standard of tolerance and that the trial judge erred in his assessment of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the activity resembled that in R. v. Mara and East, and it was open to the trial judge to find it exceeded the community standard of tolerance.

The court also found the appellant was actively involved in the day-to-day management and the conviction was supported by the evidence.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal which held that the landlord substantially interfered with the tenants' reasonable enjoyment by changing secondary locks installed by the tenants.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in focusing on the ownership of the locks rather than whether the landlord had consented to the alteration of the locking system under s. 23 of the Tenant Protection Act.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to determine the issue of consent for each individual tenancy.