Katrina Crocker

The court considered a motion for approval of a settlement in a civil action arising from the surreptitious recording and distribution of a nude video of a minor student at school.

The court found the materials filed in support of the settlement insufficient, particularly regarding the impact on the minor plaintiff, the litigation risks, and the rationale for the settlement quantum.

The court directed the parties to provide further and better materials addressing these deficiencies before the settlement could be approved.

The applicant, a milk processor, sought judicial review of two decisions by the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal upholding the Dairy Farmers of Ontario's (DFO) order requiring the applicant to pay approximately $7 million for milk pricing adjustments.

The DFO had charged the applicant the highest price for milk after audits revealed the applicant's Milk Utilization Verification (MUV) declarations could not be verified due to inadequate record-keeping.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of the regulatory scheme—that MUV declarations must be verifiable—was reasonable.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's findings that the higher price was a surcharge, not a penalty, and that the interlocutory order requiring a $3.3 million letter of credit was reasonable.

Following a successful motion for a Mareva injunction and Norwich order, the plaintiffs sought costs of $47,495.53 jointly and severally against the defendants.

The defendant Rosanna Boccia argued that costs against her should be in the cause, as she did not engage in the obstructionist tactics employed by her co-defendant son.

The court agreed that Rosanna played by the rules but noted she still lost the motion.

The court awarded total costs of $47,000, holding Rosanna jointly and severally liable for half ($23,500), while the co-defendants were held liable for the full amount.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction and a Norwich Order against the defendants, alleging they were defrauded of $775,000 through a fake cannabis business investment scheme.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and a serious risk of asset dissipation, granting the Mareva injunction to freeze the defendants' assets.

The court also granted a Norwich Order compelling third-party financial institutions to produce banking records to trace the misappropriated funds.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's fraud action for inordinate and inexcusable delay spanning over nine years.

The plaintiff attributed delays to corporate restructurings, database corruption, and translation requirements.

The court found the delay inordinate and inexcusable, noting the plaintiff's responsibility to advance the action and the lack of compelling reasons for the multi-year inaction.

The court also found a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible due to fading memories of critical viva voce evidence, especially given the fraud allegations.

The motion was granted, and the action dismissed with costs to the defendants.