William S. Chalmers

The applicant law firm sought an interpleader order regarding $83,831.83 held in its trust account.

The funds were originally part of an escrow agreement related to construction liens.

After the liens were settled, a judgment creditor of one of the contractors served a notice of garnishment on the applicant.

Both the property owner and the judgment creditor claimed entitlement to the funds.

The court granted the interpleader order on consent, allowing the applicant to pay the disputed funds into court as it claimed no beneficial interest and faced competing claims.

The plaintiff, YMCA, brought an ex parte motion to amend its Statement of Claim, obtain a Mareva injunction, and issue Certificates of Pending Litigation against multiple defendants.

The plaintiff alleged it was the victim of a $2.2 million fraud involving a government training program, where an employee conspired with various training companies to process fraudulent applications and receive kickbacks.

The court granted the amendment to the pleadings and issued the Mareva injunction against all defendants except one, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud and a real risk of asset dissipation.

The court also granted Certificates of Pending Litigation for properties where the plaintiff traced the stolen funds, but denied it for a property purchased before the fraud occurred.

The accused brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.

The total delay from the laying of charges to the anticipated end of trial was 1,503 days.

After deducting 21 days of defence delay and 498 days of delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the remaining delay was 984 days.

The court found the Crown failed to establish that delays during the preliminary hearing or the period prior to the first scheduled trial date were exceptional circumstances.

As the remaining delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan, the application was allowed and a stay of proceedings was granted.

At a judicial pre-trial, the court addressed several procedural issues for a self-represented accused facing a jury trial.

The Crown was directed to bring its application to appoint counsel for cross-examination of the complainant in writing.

The court also ordered the Crown to provide the entire disclosure package to the accused and remanded the matter to allow the accused to decide whether to bring applications under s. 11(b) of the Charter or s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant purchased two commercial condominium units from the respondent developer.

The purchase price was to be adjusted based on the 'actual gross area' of the units, calculated in accordance with the BOMA 1996 Standard.

The applicant argued the price should be based only on the net usable area, while the respondent argued it must include a gross-up for floor and building common areas.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the contract's explicit reference to the BOMA 1996 Standard objectively demonstrated the parties' intention to include the proportionate share of common areas in the calculation of the purchase price.

The applicant brought an unopposed motion to extend an existing Norwich Order and broaden its scope to include the personal bank accounts of several individuals.

The applicant alleged it was the victim of a $2.2 million fraud involving a government training program and required the banking records to trace misappropriated funds.

The court found the applicant provided sufficient evidence connecting the additional individuals to the alleged fraud and that the banks were the only practical source of the information.

The motion was granted, extending the order and compelling the production of the requested personal accounts.

The applicant, who was subject to a security certificate under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, brought an application for habeas corpus in the Superior Court to challenge the conditions of his release imposed by the Federal Court.

The Minister brought a motion to stay the application.

The Superior Court granted the motion and stayed the application, finding that the Federal Court's security certificate scheme is a complete, comprehensive, and expert statutory procedure that is as advantageous as habeas corpus, and therefore the Peiroo exception applies.

The applicant, an Indigenous person, sought a review of a detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, arguing the Justice of the Peace erred in law by failing to fully consider Gladue principles pursuant to s. 493.2.

The Superior Court admitted the applicant's fresh affidavit but found the Justice of the Peace made no error of law given the limited evidence presented at the original hearing.

Conducting a de novo review, the court concluded that detention was necessary on the secondary ground due to the applicant's significant criminal record, the violent nature of the alleged offences, and the lack of a sufficient release plan.

The plaintiff, a 16-year employee on long-term disability, was advised her employment was terminated due to corporate restructuring and offered a demoted position at a lower salary.

She accepted the new position to mitigate her damages and sued for wrongful dismissal.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court found she was wrongfully dismissed and awarded 18 months' notice based on her pre-termination salary.

The court held that the employer was not entitled to deduct the long-term disability benefits from the damages award because the plaintiff had contributed to the insurance premiums.

Claims for bad faith and discrimination damages were dismissed.

The defendant, a Toronto City Councillor, brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action brought by the plaintiff auto parts business.

The action arose from comments the councillor made during a Scarborough Community Council meeting regarding complaints from a neighbouring Royal Canadian Legion branch about the plaintiff's conduct.

The court granted the motion, finding that the councillor's expression related to a matter of public interest.

The plaintiff failed to establish that the councillor's defences of qualified privilege, fair comment, and statutory immunity had no real prospect of success.

Furthermore, the public interest in protecting the councillor's expression outweighed the minimal evidence of harm suffered by the plaintiff.

The applicant sought to register two default judgments obtained in Newfoundland against the respondents in Ontario under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act.

The judgments arose from personal guarantees on a defaulted mortgage.

The respondents opposed registration, arguing they did not carry on business in Newfoundland, were not properly served, and that the judgments were obtained by fraud.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the respondents were directors of Newfoundland companies, were properly served in Ontario, and failed to provide evidence of fraud or a good defence.

The application was granted and the judgments were ordered registered in Ontario.

The applicants, a group of 44 condominium owners, brought a motion for a compliance order against the condominium corporation regarding the replacement of exterior windows, the reserve fund study, and the failure to hold annual general meetings.

The court found that the corporation had failed to hold an AGM and elect directors as required by the Condominium Act.

The court ordered the corporation to hold an AGM and elections as soon as possible, and directed that the new board determine whether a new reserve fund study or bidding process for the windows is required.

The requests for immediate orders regarding the reserve fund study and bidding process were dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant guarantor for repayment of a $1,000,000 loan.

The defendants denied borrowing the money, alleging the loan agreement was forged and that the funds were held in trust and disbursed in cash to third parties pursuant to a promissory note.

The court found the evidentiary record from both parties to be deficient, with missing emails, text messages, and financial records, and significant credibility issues on both sides.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed as the court could not make the necessary findings of fact to achieve a fair and just result without a trial.

The plaintiff condominium corporation appealed an Associate Justice's order striking several paragraphs from its Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim.

The underlying action alleged that the defendants conspired to cause the plaintiff to release easements over adjacent land for little or no value.

The Associate Justice struck paragraphs referring to the financial position of non-parties as irrelevant and scandalous, and struck other paragraphs for pleading evidence rather than material facts.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the Associate Justice's exercise of discretion.

The applicant, a representative plaintiff in a U.S. class action regarding unsolicited telemarketing voicemails, sought to enforce Letters of Request to compel the respondent Ontario corporation to attend a deposition.

Following delays in obtaining a protective order in the U.S. action, the applicant moved to add a U.S. defendant as a party to the application and to impose an outside date for the deposition.

The court granted the order, adding the U.S. defendant as a necessary party and setting an outside date of February 4, 2022, for the completion of the deposition.

The plaintiff law firm brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction against a former associate and several staff members who abruptly left to start a competing firm, taking over 200 client files.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case for breach of fiduciary duty and good faith.

The court granted the injunction, ordering the defendants to pay the outstanding disbursements on the transferred files within five months and to hold a portion of the legal fees in trust upon settlement of the files to protect the plaintiffs' fee accounts.

The defendant, Great Lakes Nickel Limited (GLN), brought a motion to vary three previous orders and release $900,000 paid into court back to GLN.

GLN argued that following a partial summary judgment decision, it could no longer be found liable for damages.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing the fraudulent conveyance action against GLN was still active and the funds were necessary to satisfy a potential judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the foundation for the orders remained because the fraudulent conveyance claim was ongoing and the funds were GLN's only asset.

The plaintiff brought an action against his former lawyer and an employee of the Law Society of Ontario who had dismissed his complaint against the lawyer.

The Law Society employee brought a motion to strike the claim against her for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the employee was protected by statutory immunity under section 9 of the Law Society Act for acts done in good faith in the performance of her duties.

The claim was struck without leave to amend.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment regarding a dispute over a boat allegedly included in a real estate purchase.

The court previously ordered the plaintiffs to serve the motion record on the defendants.

The plaintiffs served the materials on lawyers who had not formally gone on the record for the defendants.

The court held that delivery to lawyers who are not counsel of record is not proper service under Rule 16.01(4)(b) and ordered the plaintiffs to serve the defendants personally or by an alternative to personal service.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

Prior to the motion, the defendant accepted the plaintiff's Rule 49 offer to settle, resolving all issues except costs.

The court issued an endorsement setting a timetable for written costs submissions and remained seized of the matter.