Kate Genest

The plaintiff rented his home for a film production, during which his floor was scratched.

He previously arbitrated a claim for $680,000 against the production company and was awarded $49,668.38.

Dissatisfied with the award, the plaintiff commenced a new action against different defendants (Warner Bros. entities) seeking over $500,000 for the same damage.

The defendants moved to strike the claim as an abuse of process.

The court granted the motion, finding that section 139 of the Courts of Justice Act does not permit a plaintiff to relitigate a fully adjudicated claim simply because they are dissatisfied with the damages awarded in the first proceeding.

Inzola Group Limited appealed a trial decision dismissing its claims for breach of contract and bias against the City of Brampton regarding a multi-million-dollar construction Request for Proposals (RFP).

Inzola was disqualified for breaching RFP terms, including failing to sign a confidentiality agreement, communicating outside the sole point of contact, and making public disclosures to the media.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that Inzola's breaches were fundamental and threatened the integrity of the RFP process.

The court also rejected Inzola's argument that the City breached a duty of fair and equal treatment by handling a different alleged breach by another bidder (Dominus) differently, finding Dominus's breach inconsequential compared to Inzola's.

The appeal on liability was dismissed, and leave to appeal costs was denied.

Following a 38-day trial where the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, the successful defendant sought costs of over $2.2 million on a partial indemnity basis, but argued for substantial indemnity costs from the date the plaintiff amended its pleadings to allege bias and conspiracy.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff's allegations were not made recklessly or without evidentiary foundation.

The court upheld the defendant's significant e-discovery disbursements as reasonable but ordered the defendant to produce redacted dockets for the plaintiff's review before finalizing the fee award.

The plaintiff, a construction company, sued the defendant municipality after being disqualified from a Request for Proposals (RFP) process for a City Hall expansion.

The plaintiff alleged that the municipality acted in bad faith and with bias when it disqualified the plaintiff for refusing to sign a confidentiality agreement and for communicating directly with City Council.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff had breached the clear terms of the RFP and that the municipality's decision to disqualify the plaintiff was fair, made in good faith, and based on the advice of an independent fairness advisor.

The court also held that even if the municipality had breached the RFP, the plaintiff would only be entitled to reliance damages, not expectation damages for lost profits.

The plaintiffs, Upper Canada District School Board and Patricia Brown, sought an interim injunction to compel the defendant, James Gilcig o/a Seaway Media, to remove two allegedly defamatory publications from the internet and prohibit future similar publications.

The publications concerned Ms. Brown's handling of swastika graffiti at a school in 2013.

The court applied the modified test for interim injunctions in defamation cases, which requires a high degree of certainty that the plaintiff will succeed at trial and that the words are manifestly defamatory and impossible to justify.

While acknowledging the potential reputational harm to the plaintiffs, the court found that the plaintiffs' evidentiary record was incomplete, specifically lacking a sworn deposition from maintenance staff regarding the timely removal of the graffiti.

Consequently, the motion for an interim injunction was dismissed, though the plaintiffs were not precluded from bringing the motion again with a more complete record.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application seeking an order to stop a unit owner from harassing its employees.

The respondent frequently sent abusive and insulting emails to the management office and verbally abused staff, calling them degrading names.

The court found that the respondent's conduct violated the Condominium Act's prohibition against activities likely to cause injury, including psychological harm, and constituted workplace harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The court ordered the respondent to cease and desist from her uncivil, harassing, and abusive conduct.