EM Morgan

The applicants brought an ex parte application for a Norwich Order against the respondent bank to obtain banking records.

The applicants alleged they transferred $625,000 to their daughter to hold in trust, but she liquidated the funds without permission while under the psychological influence of her boyfriend.

The court applied the test for a Norwich Order and found the applicants provided sufficient evidence to trace the funds in support of a resulting trust claim.

The application was granted.

A case conference was convened at the request of a class member and a defendant to address concerns regarding the distribution of settlement funds in a class action.

The class member raised concerns about an apparent double payment to the representative plaintiff, which the Administrator confirmed was a clerical error that had been reversed.

The defendant raised concerns about a discrepancy in class counsel fees, which the court clarified was due to the inclusion of HST in the final approved amount.

The court was satisfied that the settlement funds had been distributed correctly and no further adjustments were required.

A case conference was held following a Supreme Court of Canada decision that limited the class to personal users of the defendants' cell phone services.

The defendants intended to bring motions to enforce a costs ruling and revisit the certification order.

The plaintiff sought to proceed with examinations for discovery, while the defendants preferred to wait until after their motions were heard.

The court ordered that the discovery process proceed in tandem with the motions, as the issues raised by the defendants were primarily legal and would not significantly impact the scope of discoveries.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice, which was served four and a half months after the close of pleadings.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff had acquiesced to the late jury notice by not formally objecting and by including it in the trial record.

The court found that the plaintiff had objected to the late notice via email and that including it in the trial record was an error of caution, not an admission.

Given the defendant's delay in seeking leave to file a late jury notice and the prejudice to the plaintiff, the court struck the jury notice and ordered the matter to proceed as a non-jury trial.

In a certified class action regarding emissions defeat devices, the parties disagreed on the scheduling of a partial summary judgment motion by the foreign defendants.

The plaintiff sought to delay the motion until after full discoveries, while the defendants sought an early determination to avoid the burden of full production.

The case management judge ordered that the motion proceed prior to discoveries, but directed that the foreign defendants provide expansive disclosure for the motion, which would subsequently form part of the discovery record.

The applicant moved to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the respondent Attorney General.

The underlying application involves a Charter challenge to the application of FIPPA to certain quasi-judicial tribunals.

The parties had previously agreed to limit the scope of the application to 16 specific tribunals.

The impugned affidavit evidence detailed the procedures of the Social Benefits Tribunal, which was not one of the 16 listed tribunals.

The court granted the motion, finding that the evidence improperly expanded the scope of the application contrary to a prior case management endorsement.

Various public interest groups brought motions for leave to intervene as friends of the court in a Charter challenge regarding the application of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to administrative tribunals.

The court granted leave to intervene on consent to several groups.

For the contested proposed intervenors, the court granted leave to the Ontario Judicial Council and Justice for Children and Youth, finding they would bring unique perspectives and expertise.

The court denied leave to the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario and the Workers' Health and Safety Legal Clinic, finding their proposed contributions would be largely repetitive of positions already represented by other parties and intervenors.

At a preliminary case management conference, the parties agreed to a timetable for the application.

The parties also agreed to limit the scope of the constitutional challenge regarding the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the 16 quasi-judicial tribunals specifically named in Schedule 'A' of the Notice of Application, rather than applying it broadly to all similarly situated tribunals.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing bodily harm after his motorcycle collided with a left-turning vehicle and struck a pedestrian on the sidewalk.

Dash camera footage showed the accused speeding and weaving between vehicles, obscuring his view of the intersection.

The court found the accused's driving was a marked departure from the standard of care, resulting in a conviction for dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

However, the court acquitted the accused of criminal negligence, finding his actions did not amount to wanton or reckless disregard.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, and breach of bail conditions arising from a short-lived relationship with the complainant.

The Crown's case relied almost entirely on the testimony of the complainant.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be highly inconsistent, contradictory, and in some instances, entirely fabricated, including a bizarre story about being threatened by the mafia disguised as police officers.

Applying the principles of reasonable doubt to credibility findings, the court concluded it was impossible to determine which material parts of the complainant's testimony were true.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with attempting to obstruct justice after removing her friend's pool cues from a bar following a fatal stabbing.

The Crown argued the cues could have been used for identification, while the defence argued the accused merely retrieved her friend's property without intent to impede the investigation.

The court found that the perpetrator was well-known to patrons and staff, making the cues unnecessary for identification.

The court concluded that a specific intent to obstruct justice could not be inferred from the circumstantial evidence, and the accused was found not guilty.