Kateryna Toderishena

The plaintiffs, a group of affiliated wine manufacturers and retailers, brought an action against the LCBO, the AGCO, and the Crown challenging the 'Made Policy', which regulates where wineries can sell their products.

The parties brought six competing motions, including motions to strike pleadings, motions for summary judgment, and a motion regarding the late disclosure of a tolling agreement between the defendants.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendants' pleadings over the tolling agreement, finding it did not alter the expected adversarial landscape.

The court struck significant portions of the plaintiffs' statement of claim against the LCBO and AGCO, particularly allegations relating to pre-2001 conduct that had been settled in prior litigation, and claims for intentional interference with economic relations.

The Crown's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against it.

The AGCO's and the plaintiffs' respective motions for summary judgment were dismissed, as the complex factual matrix and allegations of bad faith required a trial.

The applicant, a retail appliance store, sought a declaration that it was permitted to remain open for in-person shopping during the COVID-19 grey lockdown stage in Toronto and Peel.

The applicant argued it qualified as an essential business under O. Reg 82/20, either as a 'hardware store' or as part of the construction supply chain.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the legislature intended the term 'hardware store' to be given its conventional, everyday meaning, which does not include a store exclusively selling home appliances.

The court rejected the applicant's attempt to stretch the plain language of the regulation.

The Attorney General of Ontario previously obtained an order approving the settlement of an application under the Civil Remedies Act.

Following the release of the endorsement, counsel for the Attorney General wrote to the court to clarify a point in their factum regarding the timing of a cited Divisional Court decision relative to the enactment of section 18.1 of the Act.

The court issued a supplementary endorsement acknowledging the clarification, noting that while it might have affected the analysis, it did not change the decision to grant the relief sought.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a civil forfeiture application under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, against various properties seized from an individual and an interested party.

The Attorney General and the interested party, Halyna Borylo, agreed to a settlement.

The court, on motion, approved the settlement, which provided for the forfeiture of most seized assets to the Crown, while allowing the interested party to retain a specific motor vehicle and a portion of the seized funds.

The court emphasized that settlement approval in civil forfeiture cases requires an analysis of whether the proposed settlement satisfies the statutory requirements of the Civil Remedies Act, rather than merely accepting party consent.

The Attorney General applied for a forfeiture order under the Civil Remedies Act for cash seized from the respondent during a drug trafficking investigation.

The respondent claimed the cash came from a real estate sale and a cultural deposit system, but provided inconsistent evidence and lacked supporting banking records.

The court found the cash was likely the proceeds of unlawful activity, given the presence of drug trafficking paraphernalia and the respondent's lack of a credible explanation for the funds.

The application was granted and the currency was ordered forfeited.