C. MacLeod

The plaintiff municipality was the victim of a cyber-fraud scheme where an unknown individual impersonated a contractor and diverted a payment of $201,285.86 to a fraudulent bank account.

After obtaining a Norwich order to identify the account holders, the plaintiff sued the defendants and noted them in default.

The court granted default judgment for the diverted funds, ordered the release of frozen funds held by the bank, and awarded $100,000 in punitive damages to deter such highly reprehensible misconduct.

Full indemnity costs were also awarded.

Following the dismissal of an application to enforce a letter rogatory from a U.S. court against a non-party, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent successfully resisted the application by demonstrating it had searched its records and that the request was overly broad and premature.

The court found the respondent acted reasonably and did not thwart a legitimate inquiry.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $32,053.03.

The applicant tenant brought a motion for interim relief from forfeiture after the respondent landlord purported to terminate a commercial lease for late payment of rent and other breaches.

The tenant's business, a restaurant, had recently opened following substantial leasehold improvements.

Despite chronic late rent payments and a shareholder dispute within the tenant corporation, the court granted interim relief from forfeiture, noting the severe impact of termination and the tenant's commitment to keep the lease in good standing.

The relief was granted subject to strict conditions, including the payment of $12,000 to the landlord for expenses and costs.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from Toronto to Brockville.

The action relates to a failed real estate transaction for a property located in Brockville.

The plaintiff resides in Mississauga, while most defendants and the property are in Brockville, with no connection to Toronto.

The court granted the transfer, finding that almost all factors favoured Brockville, and awarded costs of $1,000 to the moving defendants.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim following the death of the original plaintiff, a resident of a retirement home who was allegedly assaulted by a staff member.

The defendants opposed amendments adding claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of statutes, arguing they were statute-barred or pleaded evidence.

The court granted leave to amend, finding the new claims were either not new causes of action or potentially saved by the lack of a limitation period for assault where dependency exists, though one paragraph pleading evidence of a fine was struck.

The moving party was defrauded of $318,235.80 when a fraudulent email directed payment owed to a contractor into a new bank account.

After obtaining an initial Norwich order and freezing funds at a bank, the moving party traced the remaining funds to additional bank accounts.

The moving party brought an ex parte motion for a further order freezing the traced funds and requiring the target financial institutions to disclose information about the transfers.

The court granted the targeted freezing order and Norwich order, noting the funds appeared to be the property of the moving party.

The plaintiffs sold a construction business to the defendants, with a portion of the purchase price secured by a vendor take back promissory note.

The defendants refused to pay the note, claiming set-offs for intercompany debt, retained bank balances, and a bookkeeping error that overstated accounts receivable.

The court held that the purchase price was fixed and not subject to adjustment for the intercompany debt, and that the bookkeeping error did not constitute a breach of warranty.

However, the court allowed a set-off for the retained bank balance, which the plaintiffs conceded should have been transferred on closing, reducing the amount owing on the promissory note.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage brought an ex parte motion for an order to seize the defendants' cell phones and computers to preserve evidence of alleged solicitation and breach of contract.

The court treated the request as an Anton Piller order rather than a simple preservation order under Rule 45.01 due to its highly intrusive nature.

The motion was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real possibility that the defendants would destroy evidence if given notice of the demand.

The applicants, the parents of the deceased, sought a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee without a Will and an order dispensing with an administration bond.

The court previously adjourned the matter due to concerns about a potential marriage in Las Vegas and undisclosed liabilities related to the deceased's law practice.

The applicants provided supplementary evidence confirming the Las Vegas wedding was a media stunt and not a legal marriage, and that the estate's liabilities were estimated at $2.2 million.

The court granted the letters of administration but declined to dispense with the bond, citing the need to protect known and potential creditors, including those related to the deceased's law practice.

A bond of $1.5 million was ordered.

The applicant sought costs following a family law trial where she was the successful party, obtaining judgment for a property claim, child support arrears, spousal support, and parental decision-making.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, noting the respondent made reasonable offers on financial issues that could have shortened the trial.

The court also considered the parties' behaviour, including the applicant's rigidity on parenting issues and the respondent's withholding of funds.

The applicant was awarded costs fixed at $28,000.00.

The plaintiff sought approval of a class action settlement regarding allegations that the defendants' premium pet food products did not always contain the advertised premium ingredients.

The settlement provided for nominal individual compensation to registered class members, a cy-près payment of $375,968 to veterinary schools and an animal charity, and injunctive relief ensuring product specifications match packaging claims.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, noting the benefits outweighed the risks of continued litigation.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $295,000 and a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff, both to be paid separately by the defendants.

The parties separated after a short relationship marked by domestic violence.

The mother sought sole decision-making and restricted parenting time, while the father sought equal parenting time and joint decision-making.

The court granted the father expanded parenting time but declined to order equal time or joint decision-making due to the history of poor communication and the child's transition difficulties.

The mother was ordered to consult the father on major decisions.

The court also ordered the father to pay retroactive child support, a lump sum for spousal support, and a share of the proceeds from the sale of his home based on unjust enrichment.

Following a motion where the court struck a component of the plaintiff's tort claim and ordered parallel family and tort proceedings to be jointly case managed, the court determined costs.

Finding divided success and novelty in the issues, the court fixed costs at $8,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

Given the questionable utility of the second action, costs were ordered payable to the plaintiff in the cause.

Following a trial where the defendants successfully defended against the plaintiff's claim regarding a restrictive covenant, the defendants sought costs of $163,328.87.

The plaintiff argued for a reduced partial indemnity award of $53,191.82, citing an unproven fraud allegation by the defendants.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs but noted the importance of the indemnity principle given the employment-like relationship.

Costs were fixed at $110,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff, an IT service provider, sued the defendant independent contractors for breach of a non-competition clause after they declined to renew their sub-contracts and instead provided services to the RCMP through a competitor.

The court found that one defendant was not bound by the clause because it was inserted into an electronic renewal without notice, while the other defendant was bound but the clause itself was unreasonably broad and unenforceable.

The court held that the plaintiff had no proprietary interest in the identity of the client (the RCMP) and the restriction was an unjustified restraint of trade.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff in a subrogated action scheduled discoveries and proposed an independent insurance adjuster as its corporate representative.

Days before the scheduled discoveries, the defendants objected and insisted on examining the plaintiff's sole director.

The plaintiff rejected alternate proposals and unilaterally cancelled the discoveries.

Both parties brought motions for costs thrown away.

The court dismissed both the motion and cross-motions, finding that while the defendants should have raised the issue earlier, the plaintiff acted unreasonably in cancelling the discoveries.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for sexual assault, assault, and criminal harassment, arguing the trial judge reversed the burden of proof and misapplied the W.(D.) principles when assessing credibility.

The appellant also argued the trial judge improperly relied on demeanor, given the appellant's testimony that he was on the autism spectrum.

The summary conviction appeal court found no error in principle, concluding the trial judge properly assessed the evidence as a whole and did not shift the onus to the accused.

The appeal was dismissed.

In the context of a status review application brought by the mother to have her child returned from Extended Society Care, the Society brought a motion for the production of third-party records relating to the mother's mental health and addiction treatment.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing it was premature under s. 130 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act because the service providers had not explicitly refused to produce the records.

The court granted the motion, finding that the failure to respond to requests, combined with the mother's revocation of her consents, effectively constituted a refusal, and emphasized that the protection and safety of the child overrides the parent's privacy interests.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement following an incident in a supply room at the complainant's workplace.

Both the complainant and the accused testified, presenting conflicting versions of events.

The court applied the W. (D.) framework to assess credibility.

The court found both witnesses to be unreliable and noted significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony regarding the sequence of events and her subsequent behaviour.

Given the frailties in the evidence, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

In a bifurcated trial concerning construction damage, the damages phase was completed and the main action settled, leaving only the crossclaims for the liability phase.

The cross-claimants brought a motion to compel the defendant developer to answer questions refused on discovery regarding insurance coverage.

The developer brought a motion for a declaration that the judge who presided over the damages phase was seized of the liability phase.

The court granted the refusals motion, finding the questions relevant to the amended pleadings.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the seized judge, holding that a bifurcated trial consists of two separate trials and the judge is not seized of the second phase as a matter of law; judicial scheduling remains within the discretion of the Regional Senior Justice.