M.R. Gibson

Following a trial where the defendants were found liable in nuisance and negligence for flooding the plaintiff's lands, the parties disagreed on the calculation of prejudgment interest (PJI).

The plaintiff sought PJI based on the Canadian bank prime rate compounded annually, while the defendant argued for the statutory rate under s. 128 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court exercised its discretion under s. 130 of the Act to award compound interest at the prime rate, finding that the statutory rate would under-compensate the plaintiff and provide an unwarranted financial windfall to the defendants who had avoided maintenance costs for decades.

The parties cohabited for five and a half years.

Following their separation, the applicant sought a 50% share of the net proceeds from the sale of a property solely owned by the respondent, claiming a resulting or constructive trust, and unjust enrichment.

The respondent sought a 30/70 division in her favour and transitional spousal support.

The court found that the parties' initial and ongoing contributions were unequal, with the respondent contributing significantly more.

The court ordered the net proceeds divided 30% to the applicant and 70% to the respondent.

The respondent's claim for spousal support was dismissed as she failed to establish need or compensatory entitlement.

The plaintiff, National Steel Car Limited, brought an action against the City of Hamilton, ArcelorMittal Dofasco Inc., and the Hamilton Port Authority for damages caused by reoccurring flooding to its property from the Kenilworth Avenue Drainage Channel.

The court found the City and AMD liable in nuisance, negligence, and strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher for failing to maintain the channel and altering its flow, which caused substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiff's property.

The action against the Hamilton Port Authority was dismissed.

The court awarded the plaintiff over $5.2 million in compensatory damages, granted a permanent mandatory injunction requiring the City and AMD to remediate and maintain the channel, and awarded punitive damages of $500,000 against AMD and $400,000 against the City.

The applicant, an inmate at Grand Valley Institution for Women, applied for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of her warrant of committal.

The respondent moved to dismiss the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the applicant was attempting to relitigate issues already decided against her by the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal.

The court dismissed the application summarily under the Criminal Proceedings Rules and declined to award costs, noting there is no jurisdiction to award costs in criminal habeas corpus matters.

Following the plaintiff's successful motion and the dismissal of the defendants' motion, the court determined the costs payable to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought costs on a full indemnity basis due to the egregious and delaying conduct of the defendant.

The court found that the defendant's conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding and awarded costs of $11,900, payable personally by the defendant.

The moving party defendant sought to set aside default foreclosure judgments obtained by the plaintiffs in 2014 regarding three properties.

The defendant argued he had an oral agreement with the plaintiffs not to proceed with the actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant's evidence of an oral agreement lacked credibility, the motion was not brought with reasonable promptness, and the defendant lacked a plausible excuse for the delay or an arguable defence on the merits.