W.D. Black

The defendants brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to strike the plaintiff's defamation claim as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The plaintiff, Sikhs for Justice, sued the defendants over an article alleging the plaintiff's referendum campaign for an independent Sikh state was driven and controlled by Pakistan.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim had substantial merit and that there were grounds to believe the defendants' defences of responsible communication and fair comment might not succeed.

The court concluded that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in her wrongful dismissal claim against the defendant hospital.

The central issue was whether the termination clause in her employment agreement was enforceable.

The court found that several 'for cause' provisions in the agreement violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) by falling short of the narrow 'wilful misconduct' exemption.

Applying Waksdale, the court held that these illegal provisions rendered the entire termination clause unenforceable, despite 'saving' language in the contract.

The plaintiff was awarded 4.5 months of reasonable notice under common law.

The plaintiff developer purchased limited partnership units back from the defendant investor.

The plaintiff mistakenly calculated the purchase price based on an assumed original investment of $300,000 instead of the actual $150,000, resulting in a windfall to the defendant.

Upon discovering the error, the plaintiff sought rectification or rescission.

The court found that the transaction proceeded on a common mistake and that the defendant could not rely on the entire agreement clause to take advantage of an obvious error she could have verified.

The court granted the plaintiff equitable relief, allowing the defendant to elect between rescission or rectification (returning the $132,300 overpayment).

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal after being terminated from a three-year fixed-term employment contract.

The employment agreement was negotiated alongside a share purchase agreement.

The court found that the 'just cause' termination provision violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000, rendering the entire termination clause void, despite the commercial context and the parties' sophistication.

The plaintiff was awarded the balance of the fixed-term contract (approximately 20 months) without a duty to mitigate, plus 10% for benefits, less CERB payments received.

The applicant brought an application for a permanent injunction against the respondents, a plumber and his corporation, for holding themselves out as legal practitioners.

The individual respondent used a fake law firm name to send demand letters to plumbing customers and maintained a website offering legal services.

The court granted the injunction, finding the respondents' actions violated the Law Society Act, and ordered the corporation to change its name to remove any reference to legal services.

The plaintiff commenced an action against his real estate agent and brokerage, alleging the agent forged his signature on a waiver of a home inspection condition.

This same allegation of forgery had been previously raised by the plaintiff and rejected by a judge in an earlier application brought by the vendor to keep the plaintiff's deposit.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim as an abuse of process and barred by issue estoppel.

The court granted the motion, finding that the core issue was identical to the one already decided, the plaintiff had the opportunity to appeal the prior decision but did not, and allowing the claim to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The plaintiff brought an action for injuries sustained after slipping and falling on a retaining wall dividing the parking lots of a KFC and a TD Bank.

The remaining defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action on liability.

The court found that the barrier was intended to block vehicles, not for pedestrian crossing, and there was no evidence of regular pedestrian use that would create a duty to maintain it for that purpose.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's evidence regarding the fall was contradictory and unreliable.

The court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff, a former real estate agent for the defendant brokerage, brought a motion for an order under Rule 45.02 or an injunction requiring the defendant to set aside commission funds from transactions he closed.

The plaintiff also sought to strike the Statement of Defence or demand particulars.

The court denied the injunction but granted the Rule 45.02 order, finding the plaintiff had a right to a specific fund of commissions.

The defendant was ordered to provide an accounting, pay existing held funds into court, and set aside 12.5% of gross commissions on an ongoing basis.

The defendant was also ordered to provide particulars.

AIG Insurance Company of Canada brought an application seeking equitable contribution from Lloyd's Underwriters towards the cost of defending the City of Timmins in an underlying property damage action.

AIG and Lloyd's provided consecutive liability insurance policies to the City.

Lloyd's denied coverage, arguing the damage was not an 'occurrence' or fell under the 'expected or intended' exclusion due to a preliminary engineering report received by the City.

The court found the engineering report was not definitive enough to crystallize the loss or make the ongoing damage expected or intended.

The court held that the underlying claim raised a mere possibility of coverage, triggering Lloyd's duty to defend, and ordered Lloyd's to pay 50% of the defense costs.