DiTomaso J.

On a Rule 21 motion, the moving third party succeeded in striking a third party claim for contribution and indemnity arising from a shoreline dock project.

The court held that the plaintiffs' pleaded damages in the main action were confined to allegedly negligent repair work by the defendants, so the permit issuer's alleged negligence in granting a work permit could not support a claim-over.

Applying the duty of care framework, the court further held that the Public Lands Act and its regulations created duties owed to the public at large, not to individual permit applicants or related private parties.

Residual policy considerations also militated against imposing a private law duty of care on the province in relation to permit issuance.

The defendant, a Quebec company, brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's breach of contract action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or was forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff, an Ontario company, brought a cross-motion to validate service of the claim.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the contract was formed in Ontario and the defendant carried on business in Ontario.

The court also held that the defendant failed to establish that Quebec was clearly a more appropriate forum.

The defendant's motion was dismissed, and the plaintiff's motion to validate service was granted.

The applicant, a police officer facing a four-count indictment for breach of trust and obstructing justice, brought an application to sever counts 1 and 2 from counts 3 and 4.

The first two counts related to her conduct as a civilian witness in a domestic violence trial, while the latter two related to an undercover 'integrity scenario' investigation.

Applying the factors from R. v. Last, the court found a strong factual and legal nexus between the counts, noting that severing them would remove necessary context for the jury.

The application for severance was dismissed.

Following an order by the Court of Appeal awarding the plaintiffs their costs of a summary judgment motion, the parties were unable to agree on the quantum.

The plaintiffs sought $50,000 in fees and $3,236.40 in disbursements, while the defendant argued for costs in the cause or a reduced amount.

Applying the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court fixed the plaintiffs' costs of the summary judgment motion at $53,236.40 on a partial indemnity scale.

The court also awarded the plaintiffs $10,000 for a successful Rule 34.14 motion, with all costs payable in any event of the cause.

In this costs decision following an urgent injunction motion and a successful application, the moving party sought partial indemnity costs for both proceedings.

The court held that costs followed the event and accepted that the moving party was substantially successful on the injunction motion and entirely successful on the application.

Applying the proportionality and fairness principles under rule 57.01 and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court reduced the amounts claimed as excessive, particularly in light of duplication in the later application materials.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 for the injunction motion and $10,000 for the application, for a total award of $25,000.

The landlords brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order and to lift the automatic stay.

The tenants had appealed the Board's refusal to grant an adjournment, which they requested because their legal representative was unprepared.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was devoid of merit, raised no question of law, and was an abuse of process intended solely to delay eviction while the tenants continued to pay no rent.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the stay was lifted.

The applicants, owners of lots on a 1950 plan of subdivision, sought a declaration that certain lots designated as an 'area of user common to each property owner' remained subject to those rights.

The respondent owners of the fee simple in those common lots argued the rights had expired under the Registry Act and were extinguished upon conversion to the Land Titles system.

The court held that the dedication created valid, subsisting quasi-public rights and easements that were openly enjoyed and thus saved from expiry under the Registry Act.

The court declared the lands remain subject to the applicants' rights and prohibited the respondents from interfering with them.

The applicant, a non-share capital corporation, sought a declaration that a resolution proposed by its voting members to remove certain directors and amend its by-laws was unlawful.

The voting members had requisitioned a special meeting to pass the resolution following a governance review that alleged the directors were in a conflict of interest.

The court granted the application, finding that under the Corporations Act and the applicant's by-laws, the voting members did not have the authority to unilaterally amend the by-laws or reduce the number of directors.

Furthermore, the resolution to remove the directors failed to comply with the procedural fairness and conflict of interest provisions set out in the by-laws.

In a pretrial voir dire on a first degree murder prosecution arising from a fatal house fire, the Crown sought to admit a statement allegedly made by the accused to a friend about learning how to burn down a house and collect insurance money.

The court held the statement met the threshold requirements of relevance, materiality, and discreditable conduct, but found the evidence weak on timing, detail, and witness reliability.

Applying the probative value versus prejudicial effect analysis for extrinsic misconduct evidence, the court concluded the proposed evidence invited impermissible propensity reasoning.

The Crown failed to show that probative value outweighed moral prejudice, and the statement was excluded.

Sentencing following jury convictions for failing to provide the necessaries of life to an elderly family member suffering from severe dementia and multiple physical infirmities.

The court held that the offenders' prolonged neglect, breach of trust, concealment from health-care oversight, and the victim's extreme vulnerability made denunciation and deterrence paramount.

Applying the conditional sentence framework, the court found a community-based sentence would not be proportionate to the gravity of the offences or the offenders' responsibility.

Each offender received 12 months' imprisonment on each count concurrent, followed by two years' probation, plus DNA and non-communication orders.

On a Crown pretrial motion in a first degree murder prosecution, the court considered whether two earlier forged solicitor letters were admissible as extrinsic misconduct or similar fact evidence.

The Crown alleged the accused used a similar cut-and-paste method to attach genuine signatures to fabricated documents, and argued the prior letters were probative of authorship, modus operandi, and the alleged falsity of a will and related estate documents said to support motive, planning, and deliberation.

Applying the threshold analysis for extrinsic misconduct and the similar fact balancing framework, the court found the evidence relevant, material, discreditable, and strongly probative.

The court held the probative value outweighed moral and reasoning prejudice and admitted the letters.

The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing a claim arising from a share purchase agreement in which the plaintiff withheld escrow funds alleging breach of a non‑competition covenant.

The plaintiff asserted that the defendant assisted a competitor by facilitating access to a refrigerated trailer through related entities, thereby providing a competitive “springboard.” The court found the plaintiff’s escrow payment request failed to comply with the contractual notice requirements and, more importantly, that the evidentiary record did not establish that the defendant affirmatively assisted or induced any competitive business in breach of the covenant.

The trailer was owned and leased by a separate corporation and was not unique or provided without compensation.

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

Following a motion to set aside an ex parte injunction preventing the repatriation of an incapacitated individual to the United Kingdom for medical care, the successful party sought costs.

The court considered whether costs should be awarded on a full, substantial, or partial indemnity basis under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the moving party on the set‑aside motion was the successful party and that the circumstances justified substantial indemnity costs due to the expense incurred responding to the ex parte order and issues relating to disclosure.

However, the claimed amount was reduced to reflect proportionality and efficiency concerns, including duplication of work by counsel.

Substantial indemnity costs of $10,000 all‑inclusive were awarded.

The appellants moved to set aside an administrative dismissal of their Divisional Court appeal and to extend the time for appeal.

The appeal had been dismissed by the Registrar based on a misapprehension that no transcript was required.

The court found that the dismissal was an administrative error, as transcripts had been ordered and the trial judge had not yet issued a final judgment on the construction lien issues.

The court set aside the dismissal and granted the extension of time, finding the four-part test for an extension was met.

The plaintiff, a drywall contractor, brought a construction lien action claiming he personally contracted with the defendant general contractor.

The defendant argued the contract was actually with the plaintiff's numbered company, a unionized entity, and that the plaintiff was attempting to circumvent his union obligations by claiming a personal contract.

The court found that the contract was indeed with the numbered company, not the plaintiff personally.

As the plaintiff was not the proper party to claim the lien, his action was dismissed and the lien was discharged.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order dismissing her motion for leave to bring a partial summary judgment motion on liability and contributory negligence after the action had been set down for trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motions judge correctly applied the test under Rule 48.04 and that there was no conflicting decision or reason to doubt the correctness of the order.

The court agreed that a summary judgment motion would not provide a proportionate, more expeditious, or less expensive means to achieve a just result than a trial.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for sexual assault arising from an incident during a work retreat where he entered a colleague’s bedroom through a balcony and engaged in non-consensual sexual touching.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, erred in credibility findings, misdirected himself regarding honest but mistaken belief in consent, and improperly rejected unchallenged evidence.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge properly applied the W.D. framework, made credibility findings grounded in the record, and did not materially misapprehend evidence.

The court further held that the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent lacked an evidentiary foundation because there was no conduct from the complainant capable of conveying consent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit, arguing that the trial judge unreasonably concluded he was in care or control of the vehicle.

The appellant had been seated in the driver’s seat of a running vehicle with the headlights and heater on while intoxicated, claiming he intended to walk to a friend’s house rather than drive.

Applying the principles from R. v. Boudreault, the court held that the trial judge reasonably found a realistic risk of danger because the appellant’s alleged alternate plan was vague and had been undermined by subsequent events.

The trial judge was entitled to conclude the appellant exercised care or control by unlocking, starting, and occupying the vehicle without a concrete plan.

The verdict was supported by the evidence and not unreasonable.

Following dismissal of a civil action arising from a failed mortgage investment through a self-directed RRSP, the successful defendants sought costs.

The plaintiff alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and contractual breaches against multiple TD entities after his lawyer misappropriated mortgage funds and failed to register a mortgage.

The court held that the defendants were entitled to costs as wholly successful parties and that Rule 49 consequences applied because they achieved a better result than their pre-trial offer to settle.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity thereafter, though the court reduced the amounts claimed for duplication and excess time.

Total costs of $63,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements were fixed.

The applicants filed complaints regarding police conduct during the G20 summit.

The Director initially directed the Chiefs of Police not to seek extensions of time to serve Notices of Hearing, effectively closing the matters.

The applicants sought judicial review.

Following a Divisional Court decision in another case, the Director reversed his decision and directed the Chiefs to seek extensions, which they did.

The Director then brought a motion to quash the judicial review application on the basis of mootness.

The court granted the motion, finding that the dispute had disappeared and there was no compelling reason to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application.