Suzan E. Fraser

The plaintiffs, eight long-term employees, brought a motion for default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action after the defendants closed their manufacturing facility and relocated it without notice.

The court found that the defendants wrongfully dismissed the plaintiffs and discriminated against them based on their age.

The court awarded damages for unpaid wages, statutory and common law notice, loss of benefits, human rights breaches, and aggravated damages.

The corporate defendants and the personal defendant were found jointly and severally liable under the common employer doctrine and the oppression remedy.

The parties, two brothers, co-owned a property that was ordered to be sold under the Partition Act, with a reference directed to an Associate Justice to determine the distribution of proceeds.

The matter mistakenly proceeded before an Assessment Officer.

The applicant moved to vary the order to allow the Assessment Officer to continue, while the respondent cross-moved for a mini-trial to assert unpleaded equitable claims for his contributions to the property.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that Assessment Officers lack jurisdiction to conduct such references and that the respondent's equitable claims were not properly pleaded.

The matter was directed to proceed before an Associate Justice as originally ordered.

The self-represented moving party brought a contempt motion under Rule 60.11 against several parties, alleging they knowingly relied on a vacated writ of execution despite a prior order setting aside the underlying default judgment.

The court denied the moving party's adjournment request after applying the relevant factors, finding she had ample time to file evidence and retain counsel.

On the merits, the motion failed because the order alleged to have been breached did not require the responding parties to do or refrain from doing anything, and no evidence of a deliberate and wilful breach was tendered.

The motion was dismissed with full indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought an action claiming $350,000 in damages arising from the defendant's alleged failure to close a purported assignment of an agreement of purchase and sale for a newly constructed home.

The court found the plaintiff did not have the builder's required written consent to assign the original agreement.

The court further found the plaintiff made fraudulent misrepresentations regarding upgrades, a fourth ensuite bathroom, and his right to assign the agreement, rendering the contract voidable.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed as he failed to prove his claim on a balance of probabilities.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their action for damages arising from a landlord's anticipatory breach of a residential lease.

The deputy judge had ruled that the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to recent amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the deputy judge provided inadequate reasons and erred in concluding that a pre-tenancy breach fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board.

The matter was remitted to the Small Claims Court for a new trial.

The appellant moved for a stay pending appeal of an order directing the sale of the matrimonial home.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by ordering the sale under the Partition Act when it had not been explicitly pleaded.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried but concluded the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any harm would be purely monetary.

The balance of convenience also favoured the respondent, who needed access to the home's equity.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The defendants by counterclaim brought a motion for partial summary judgment on a counterclaim arising from a complex business relationship involving a share purchase agreement and related transactions.

The defendants argued the counterclaim was statute-barred and that there was no evidence establishing liability.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the limitation period due to the ongoing interrelated dealings between the parties that continued into 2019.

The court granted partial summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim against four individual defendants but allowed the counterclaim to proceed against the remaining corporate defendants, finding genuine issues requiring trial regarding commissions owed and the interrelated nature of the business relationships.

The plaintiff, a fitness equipment retailer, brought a motion for an interim injunction to stop the defendants' spice import and distribution business from transmitting odours into the plaintiff's adjacent condominium unit.

The defendants argued the Condominium Authority Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction, that building deficiencies rather than their operations caused the problem, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

The court found the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case of nuisance, demonstrated irreparable harm through health impacts and business losses including reputational damage and loss of goodwill, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The court granted the interim injunction.

A construction lien claimant sought an order authorizing the sale of a property and a declaration that the first mortgagee was an owner under the Construction Act, thereby giving the lien priority over the mortgage.

The plaintiff had performed demolition and rebuilding work on the property but remained unpaid for approximately $760,000 of work.

The mortgagee had taken possession of the property and changed locks.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mortgagee was not an owner under the Act because the work was not done at the mortgagee's request, despite evidence of the mortgagee's awareness and acquiescence to the work.

A defamation action brought by a not-for-profit housing corporation against a tenant who conducted an extensive social media campaign alleging fraud, conspiracy, and criminal conduct by the housing provider and its staff.

The defendant moved to dismiss the action under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP motion), claiming the statements related to a matter of public interest.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while systemic issues relating to social housing could theoretically be matters of public interest, the defendant's expression was intended to manufacture concern about an issue lacking genuine public debate or notoriety.

The court found the expression was rooted in a private dispute and was a personal attack cloaked in the guise of public concern, intended to foster animosity toward the housing provider without regard for truth.

The court considered a motion by Salerno Realty Inc., Brokerage to dismiss Intercity Realty Inc., Brokerage’s action for breach of contract and commission entitlement, on the basis that the matter had already been determined by arbitration under the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB) process.

The court found that its jurisdiction was ousted by the TRREB Arbitration Guidelines, which required members to submit commission disputes to arbitration.

The court also found that issue estoppel applied, as the issues had been fully adjudicated in arbitration, and dismissed the action against Salerno.

The decision did not affect Intercity’s claim against the defendant Mr. Cardwell.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from a scooter accident on a municipal road.

The court found that the plaintiff, who was self-represented and did not appear or file materials, failed to establish that the road was in a state of non-repair or that any non-repair caused the accident.

The municipality established statutory defences under the Municipal Act, 2001, including that the pothole was within the minimum maintenance standards.

The action was dismissed and costs awarded to the defendant.

The applicant, a tenant of Barrie Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation, sought leave to bring a derivative action on behalf of the corporation, alleging overcharging and fraud.

The court considered whether the applicant qualified as a "complainant" under the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010, and whether the statutory criteria for leave were met.

The court found the applicant was not a proper person to bring the action, was not acting in good faith, and that granting leave was not in the interests of the corporation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation applied under section 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998 for an order prohibiting the respondent from occupying or visiting her mother's condominium unit and the building's common elements.

The applicant alleged that the respondent engaged in a campaign of harassment, threats, and intimidation against condominium staff and residents, and raised concerns regarding the elder abuse of her mother, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease.

The respondent's sisters, acting as co-attorneys for their mother, supported the application, noting that the respondent had restricted their access to their mother and exhibited abusive behaviour.

The Court found that the respondent's behaviour breached the Condominium Act and the corporation's governing documents.

Accordingly, the Court granted the application, permanently barring the respondent from occupying or visiting the unit and the common elements.

The defendants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the plaintiff from enforcing its mortgage security by way of power of sale, pending the resolution of their counterclaim alleging misrepresentation.

The court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding alleged misrepresentation, the defendants failed to establish irreparable harm, as any losses could be compensated by damages.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, Muhammad and Naseem Farid, sued their former solicitor, Gerald Byron Brunt, for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of good faith, and breach of statutory duty after a failed real estate transaction.

The court found that the plaintiffs did not have the funds to close the transaction and that the defendant was not responsible for the failure.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' evidence as inconsistent and unsupported by documentary evidence, and found the expert evidence provided by the plaintiffs to be partial and unreliable.

The action was dismissed, and even if liability had been found, damages would have been limited to $1,400.

This decision addresses a Rule 2.1.01 motion concerning multiple proceedings commenced by the plaintiff, Aynoush Biniaz-Sarabi, arising from a motor vehicle accident and subsequent denial of accident benefits.

The court reviews the history of related litigation, including prior decisions by the Licence Appeal Tribunal and Divisional Court, and considers whether the current and related actions are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Several actions are dismissed under Rule 2.1.01, and the court declines to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant without a formal motion.

The Plaintiff brought a motion for leave to issue a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, consolidate two proceedings, and add Modern Cleaning Concept Inc. as a defendant after the limitation period.

The proposed defendant, Modern Cleaning, opposed the motion, arguing lack of reasonable diligence by the Plaintiff and non-compensable prejudice.

The court applied the Morrison v. Barzo framework, finding that the Plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence in discovering the claim against Modern Cleaning, particularly given Wal-Mart's delayed disclosure of the cleaning contractor.

The court also found that Modern Cleaning would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

The motion was granted.

The Plaintiff, Samiy Retail Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment in an action arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The Plaintiff sought damages for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS), including a shortfall from resale, financing costs, and forfeited deposits.

The Defendant, Sajish Kallarakkal, argued there were genuine issues for trial, including the validity of the APS due to late deposit, identification of parties, and late waiver of conditions.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, concluding that a binding contract existed and was breached by the Defendant.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, the counterclaim dismissed, and damages awarded to the Plaintiff.

This criminal trial concerned Puneet Grewal, charged with dangerous driving causing death after he reversed his dump truck on a landfill site, running over and killing Kyrsten Sujanszky.

The Crown alleged that Grewal's driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable and prudent truck driver, specifically by reversing without regard to Ms. Sujanszky's whereabouts despite an obligation to keep her in sight.

The court examined the circumstances of the site, the inherent dangers of reversing a dump truck, and the actions of both the accused and the deceased.

Ultimately, the court found that while Grewel's actions might have been careless, there was reasonable doubt as to whether they constituted a 'marked departure' from the standard of care, particularly given the uncertainties about how Ms. Sujanszky came to be in the truck's path and the site's own safety practice deficiencies.

Grewal was found not guilty.