W.D. Black

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment seeking payment of a liquidated debt of $795,852.80 plus post-judgment interest, arising from the defendants' breach of a 2014 agreement regarding unpaid royalties and an indemnity.

The defendants did not oppose the motion.

The court found the plaintiff's materials amply supported the claim and granted judgment in the requested amount, along with agreed partial indemnity costs of $20,369.42.

The applicant purchaser sought the return of a $3.25 million deposit after refusing to close a $70 million commercial real estate transaction, alleging the respondent vendor failed to satisfy conditions regarding a Walmart estoppel certificate and a Dollarama lease extension.

The vendor argued the purchaser used minor technicalities to avoid closing due to the economic uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the vendor made commercially reasonable efforts to satisfy the conditions and that the purchaser failed to act reasonably and in good faith by refusing to accept the documents or negotiate.

The court concluded the purchaser repudiated the transaction and the vendor was entitled to retain the deposit.

The applicants, co-owners of a property, brought an application to discharge a 1961 mortgage registered against the property.

The original mortgagees could not be located despite extensive searches.

The court was satisfied that the mortgage had likely been paid in full and that there was no reasonable prospect of obtaining a discharge from the mortgagees.

The court ordered the mortgage discharged pursuant to section 12(8) of the Mortgages Act.

A case conference was held to address multiple related actions.

On consent, the claims against Shahzad Siddiqui and Borden Ladner Gervais LLP were dismissed with prejudice and without costs.

The court directed counsel to confer regarding the potential release of individual defendants and established a timetable for scheduling upcoming dispositive motions.

The respondent law firm brought a motion to strike a supplementary motion record and subsequent affidavits delivered by the applicants in an application to assess the firm's accounts.

The applicants delivered the 1,229-page supplementary record over six years after the application was commenced, without leave, and after the applicants had already been cross-examined on their original affidavits.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the late delivery constituted improper case-splitting and an attempt to 'shore up' evidence post-cross-examination.

The court also denied the applicants' request to cross-examine a witness, finding they had forfeited the right by failing to exercise reasonable diligence.

A case conference was held to manage multiple related proceedings.

Counsel for the plaintiffs indicated a recommendation for the plaintiffs to agree to dismissals without costs in most cases, except potentially the claim against Grant Thornton LLP Canada, which requires leave to proceed.

The court directed that a new class action issued by one of the plaintiffs be case managed together with the existing matters.

Counsel were directed to advise on dismissals or agree on a timetable for dispositive motions by a specified date.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement arising from a defaulted loan and promissory note.

The defendants argued the underlying debt was statute-barred, the interest rate was criminal, and the individual defendant did not sign as a guarantor.

The court found the promissory note was a demand obligation, the limitation period was extended by the COVID-19 suspension and a valid email acknowledgment, and the individual defendant clearly signed as a guarantor.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

At a trial management conference, the court considered whether a jury trial scheduled to begin on May 24, 2022, could be completed by June 30, 2022.

Despite the cooperative efforts of counsel to pare down the estimated trial time, the court found that proceeding would create a very high risk of a mistrial due to scheduling constraints and unforeseen delays.

The court ordered the trial adjourned to a window in early 2023.

The defendants brought motions to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim, which alleged he was racially profiled and falsely accused of theft at a trade show.

The court dismissed the motions brought by the exhibitor and security company defendants, finding the claim disclosed potential causes of action in negligence, misrepresentation, and defamation when read generously.

The court granted the motion brought by the event organizer, striking the claim against it without leave to amend, as no reasonable cause of action was discernible.

The plaintiff, a prominent human rights lawyer, was struck by the defendant's motor vehicle while riding her bicycle.

The defendant failed to discharge the reverse onus under the Highway Traffic Act and was found wholly liable.

The court accepted expert medical evidence that the plaintiff suffered a permanent mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and chronic migraines, which effectively ended her legal career.

The court dismissed the defendants' threshold motion, finding the plaintiff sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important function, and awarded substantial damages including $250,000 in general damages, past and future income loss, and future care costs.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent ex parte motion for an Anton Piller Order and related injunctive relief against a former independent contractor.

The contractor allegedly manipulated invoices, and upon being suspended, launched a cyber attack that shut down the plaintiffs' systems, deleted sensitive data, and caused significant financial damage.

The contractor also allegedly engaged in a campaign of defamation, doxing, and death threats against the plaintiffs' personnel.

The court found the evidence justified the rare remedy of an Anton Piller Order without notice to prevent the destruction of evidence.

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant hospital network and subsequently seconded to a provincial health agency.

The secondment was terminated early, and the plaintiff's employment was terminated without cause.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the secondment agreement was a fixed-term employment contract entitling him to compensation for the balance of the term, plus 12 months' severance under his original employment agreement.

The court dismissed this claim, finding the secondment agreement was not an employment contract and the plaintiff remained an employee of the hospital network subject to the 12-month termination provision.

The court awarded the plaintiff a $5,000 health care spending account but dismissed his claim for a performance bonus.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for preservation and Norwich Orders after $2.55 million was fraudulently transferred from its bank account to accounts held by the defendants.

The plaintiff sought to trace and preserve the funds, and required identity information from the banks to proceed with a Mareva injunction.

The court found clear evidence of a scheme to defraud the plaintiff and granted the requested orders.

The plaintiff brought an undefended action claiming the defendant, his sister-in-law, agreed to pay him proceeds from a life insurance policy on his late wife.

The court found the plaintiff failed to establish any consideration flowing to the defendant to support a binding contract, noting the payments made were equally consistent with a gift.

Despite the defendant being noted in default, the court held that deemed admissions apply only to facts, not conclusions of law.

The claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff appealed an Associate Justice's decision removing its counsel of record due to a conflict of interest.

The defendant, a former lawyer for the plaintiff being sued for professional negligence, intended to call lawyers from the plaintiff's current firm as witnesses regarding advice they provided to the plaintiff before, during, and after the defendant's retainer.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's conclusion that the lawyers were likely to be material witnesses and that their continued representation would impair the administration of justice.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant had been granted two extensions but failed to close, and the plaintiff subsequently resold the property to another buyer at a lower price.

The court granted summary judgment, awarding the plaintiff damages for the difference in purchase price, specific incurred costs, and six months of foregone interest on a vendor-take-back mortgage, offset by the defendant's forfeited deposit.

On the eve of trial, the plaintiffs brought a motion for further documentary production and discovery after the defendants provided late answers to questions previously refused during examinations for discovery.

The defendants argued that issue estoppel applied due to previous unsuccessful refusals motions.

The court rejected the issue estoppel argument, finding that the defendants altered the litigation landscape by voluntarily providing the late answers.

The court ordered limited, file-specific documentary production relevant to the new answers, but denied broader discovery requests to avoid delaying the trial.

The plaintiff brought an undefended trial claiming his sister-in-law agreed to transfer life insurance proceeds to him following his wife's death.

The court raised concerns about the lack of consideration for the alleged agreement, as the plaintiff admitted the defendant received nothing in exchange.

The court deferred its decision to allow the plaintiff's counsel to provide written submissions on the issue of consideration.

The applicant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision in a loss transfer dispute regarding priority for statutory accident benefits.

The claimant was injured while driving a rental vehicle provided by the respondent insurer as a temporary substitute vehicle for more than 30 days.

The court held that the 30-day limit for rental vehicles under section 2.2.4 of the Ontario Automobile Policy (O.A.P.1) does not apply to temporary substitute vehicles under section 2.2.2.

The court also upheld the arbitrator's finding that the claimant's submission of an OCF-1 form to the respondent constituted a valid choice of insurer under section 268(4) of the Insurance Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant landlord brought an application regarding a commercial tenancy after the respondent tenants unilaterally withheld rent for 10 months.

The tenants claimed they were entitled to an abatement of rent because a failed Fire Code inspection delayed their ability to open a daycare facility on the premises.

The court found that while the landlord was responsible for some delay in rectifying the Fire Code violations, the tenants' withholding of 10 months' rent was an unduly aggressive self-help remedy.

The court granted a 4-month rent abatement, ordered the tenants to pay the remaining arrears within 45 days, and declined to order forfeiture of the lease.

The court also ordered the parties to cooperate on revising the design of a fence the tenants had installed without approval.