Karen Leanne Dawson

The bankrupt applied under s. 187(5) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to vary a conditional discharge order, arguing the Trustee incorrectly calculated surplus income and failed to consider his family and financial situation.

The Trustee opposed, arguing the application was premature and should have been brought under s. 172(3).

The court held that s. 187(5) was the appropriate mechanism because the bankrupt sought to adduce new evidence and arguments overlooked at the initial hearing.

The court found the Trustee's surplus income calculation was incorrect as it failed to account for the bankrupt's actual monthly income and his custody of two children.

Concluding that further payments would hinder the bankrupt's rehabilitation, the court varied the order to grant an absolute discharge.

The appellant, representing Ontario grain farmers, applied under Rule 14.05(3)(d) for a declaration interpreting a regulation that restricted the use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds.

The appellant argued the regulation was unworkable and sought an interpretation that would effectively delay its implementation.

The motion judge struck the application for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the regulation was not ambiguous and the appellant was improperly seeking to rewrite the regulation rather than resolve a genuine interpretive dispute.

An agricultural industry association sought a stay of a provincial regulation restricting the use of neonicotinoid‑treated seeds pending further compliance time, arguing farmers would suffer economic harm due to regulatory timing requirements.

The province opposed and brought a cross‑motion to strike the application for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that injunctive relief against the Crown is highly restricted and unavailable absent circumstances such as deliberate flouting of the law, which were not present.

Even if relief were available, the applicant failed to meet the RJR‑MacDonald test for an interlocutory stay because the alleged harm was speculative and compensable in damages and the balance of convenience favoured environmental protection.

The court also held the application improperly sought to rewrite or delay the operation of a regulation rather than determine legal rights and therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

Following a construction lien trial in which the plaintiff contractor’s lien claim was dismissed and the defendants succeeded on a counterclaim for overpayment, the court addressed the issue of costs under the Construction Lien Act.

The owners sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $83,000, including a significant expert witness disbursement.

The court applied the discretionary factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considered complexity, success at trial, and the parties’ conduct.

The contractor argued there had been divided success and challenged the necessity of certain legal work and disbursements, but the court rejected these submissions.

Concluding that the owners were the successful parties and that their claimed costs were reasonable within the expectations of the litigation, the court awarded partial indemnity costs with a reduction to one expert report.

A contractor brought a construction lien action seeking payment for renovation work performed on a residential property.

The homeowners disputed the claim and counterclaimed alleging overpayment, asserting the work was subject to a guaranteed maximum budget.

The court found no enforceable contract existed because the parties never agreed on the essential term of price.

The contractor was nevertheless entitled to compensation on a quantum meruit basis for the reasonable value of services and materials supplied.

Accepting expert quantity‑surveying evidence, the court determined the fair value of the work was less than the amount already paid, resulting in dismissal of the contractor’s claim and a small award to the homeowners on their counterclaim.

A costs decision following dismissal of an application in a multi‑jurisdictional commercial dispute.

The successful party sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $28,000 while the unsuccessful party requested that costs be fixed at approximately half that amount and payable in the cause.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered the complexity of jurisdictional issues, the experience and efficiency of counsel, and the reasonableness of the claimed hours and rates.

The court held that the appropriate award should reflect overall reasonableness rather than a line‑by‑line bill assessment and fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The court also set aside a registrar’s administrative order dismissing the action as abandoned, finding no delay in prosecution.

The defendant, a resident of South Africa, brought a motion to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction or to strike the statement of claim.

The plaintiff, an Ontario corporation, alleged an international conspiracy involving the defendant that resulted in the misappropriation of funds intended for a wind power project.

The court applied the real and substantial connection test and found that the plaintiff established a good arguable case for jurisdiction, as the alleged tort and breach of contract had sufficient connections to Ontario.

The court also declined to strike the pleadings, finding them adequate at this early stage, and validated the service of the statement of claim despite technical deficiencies.

Following a motion and cross-motion that resulted in mixed success for both parties, the court invited written costs submissions.

The moving party sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $11,000, while the responding party sought approximately $8,800 or alternatively no order as to costs.

The court observed that the motion prompted the parties to moderate their positions and engage in compromise.

Taking into account the mixed success and proportionality considerations, the court exercised its discretion to fix a lump sum costs award payable to the moving party.

The plaintiff brought a productions motion in a contractual dispute concerning a 2007 central financing agreement.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant breached the agreement due to pressure from GM dealers and sought production of documents relating to a proposed Consillium financing structure, GM dealer meeting records, internal credit policies, and redacted communications.

The court found several categories of documents relevant to the pleaded theory and ordered production of documents concerning the creation of Consillium and internal policy materials, including menus of credit policy titles.

The defendant was also required to request relevant records from a dealers’ association and provide sufficient descriptions for documents claimed as privileged.

The motion and cross‑motion resulted in mixed success, with further costs submissions invited.

The plaintiff leasing company sued a co-lessee for a deficiency balance after a leased vehicle was not returned and was later stolen following two lease extensions.

The defendant argued he had only agreed to support the original lease financially and had not consented to the later extensions, which bore signatures found not to be his.

The court held that the defendant functioned as an accommodation surety and that the lease extensions materially varied the principal contract without his consent.

Under the law governing sureties and the lease’s entire agreement clause, such variations discharged the surety from liability.

The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed and the defendant succeeded on his counterclaim for repayment of funds withdrawn from his account after the original lease term.

The moving party sought an interim injunction to halt the demolition of houses pending the hearing of an interlocutory injunction.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to establish irreparable harm, noting that pre-screening of the properties had found no snakes.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured the responding party, as the demolition plans had been public for some time and the moving party could have sought relief earlier.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating his tenancy for non-payment of rent and dismissing his applications.

At the hearing, the Board granted the landlord's motion to remove the tenant's representative and subsequently denied the tenant's request for an adjournment to obtain new representation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's refusal to grant an adjournment under the circumstances was arbitrary and constituted a denial of natural justice.

The matter was remitted to a different member of the Board.