Kevin J. Scullion

The court sentenced Marc Quirion for trafficking in methamphetamine after he pled guilty.

The sentencing considered the large quantity of drugs, Quirion’s significant criminal record, and his background, including exposure to drug culture from a young age.

The Crown sought an eight-year sentence, while the defence argued for three years less credit for time served.

The court imposed a six-year sentence, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and ordered a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture of drugs and cash.

This decision addresses cross-applications between two groups of real estate investors, led by David Civiero and Grant Alexander Hood, regarding the winding up or buy-sell/shotgun disposition of their jointly held corporations.

The court grants leave to add parties, converts the applications to actions, and orders transfer and consolidation with a related Toronto action, finding that the complexity and credibility issues require a full trial.

The appellant, a co-founder of a technology company, appealed the dismissal of his application for an oppression remedy under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The application judge had focused narrowly on the employment agreement, finding no reasonable expectation of indefinite employment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the application judge erred by failing to consider the appellant's reasonable expectations as a shareholder and director, and by focusing solely on the written agreements rather than the broader equitable context of the oppression remedy.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for a trial to resolve factual disputes and credibility issues.

The plaintiffs, Grant A. Hood Holdings Inc. and Grant A. Hood, brought a motion seeking unfettered access to the books and records of Hodero Holdings Ltd. and Cade Management Ltd., including real-time online access to QuickBooks, source documents, and the Hodero email server, as well as further affidavits of documents from the defendants.

The court granted real-time QuickBooks access with shared costs, allowed on-site inspection of hard copy source documents with shared conversion costs, but denied broad access to the Hodero email server, finding no legitimate business need and that the request was disproportionate.

The court also denied immediate orders for further affidavits of documents and cross-examination on them, emphasizing ongoing disclosure obligations.

Portions of an affidavit related to arbitration confidentiality were struck.

The applicant, Mississauga Hardware Centre Inc., sought interlocutory and permanent injunctive relief to compel the respondent, Prombank Investment Limited, to remove barriers restricting access to a shopping plaza.

Mississauga Hardware alleged breaches of the implied covenant for quiet enjoyment, the doctrine of non-derogation from grant, and the landlord's duty to act in good faith.

Prombank asserted its contractual right to control plaza access, arguing the restrictions were a reasonable response to parking issues caused by a neighbouring business and that the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or mitigate losses.

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions and found no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction.

The application was dismissed, with the court finding Prombank's actions to be a measured and reasonable response to the parking problems.

This appeal concerned the capacity of Paul Tanti to enter into a marriage with Sharon Joseph.

Raymond Tanti, Paul's son, appealed the trial judge's decision that the marriage was valid, arguing his father lacked the requisite capacity.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's findings, holding that the correct legal test for marriage capacity was applied, which requires understanding the nature of the marriage contract and its duties.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence, including the discounting of non-contemporaneous expert opinions and the reliance on direct lay witness testimony.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the validity of the marriage.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a dismissed motion brought by the defendants.

The court found the defendants' conduct, including raising serious, unfounded ethical allegations against the plaintiff's counsel and subsequently abandoning a motion to remove him, constituted an abuse of process.

The court affirmed its broad inherent jurisdiction to award costs in such circumstances, including for abandoned motions.

Given the abusive and damaging nature of the allegations, the court awarded full indemnity costs to the plaintiff and their counsel.

The defendants brought a motion and the plaintiff a cross-motion in a Construction Lien Act action.

The defendants sought to adjourn the trial, challenge the authenticity of the Claim for Lien, amend their Statement of Defence, and have witnesses provide evidence by affidavit, while also making serious, unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct and ethical breaches against the plaintiff's current and former counsel.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion in its entirety, noting their failure to comply with court orders and the lack of evidence for their serious allegations.

The issue of removing plaintiff's counsel was abandoned with prejudice.

The plaintiff's cross-motion was not dealt with as the primary issues were resolved.

The trial was set peremptorily for May 2021.

Costs were reserved for written submissions.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision granting judgment on a guarantee in favour of the respondent credit union.

The appellant's defence was that a representative of the credit union had represented to her that she would only be responsible for 25% of the entire loan, despite the documents she signed stating the guarantee was unlimited.

The motion judge rejected the appellant's evidence of misrepresentation and granted summary judgment in accordance with the terms of the guarantee.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no error in the motion judge's determination that there was no genuine issue for trial.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her motion to set aside a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent bank for a shortfall on a repossessed motorcycle.

The appellant claimed her signature on the guarantee was forged by her deceased husband.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the appellant failed to meet her burden of demonstrating grounds to set aside the judgment, provided no expert evidence of forgery, offered no adequate explanation for the two-and-a-half-year delay, and would have caused prejudice to the respondent given the four-year delay in enforcement.

Following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff was awarded $153,241.40, the plaintiff sought full indemnity costs of $15,674.22 based on a contractual right.

The individual defendant argued costs should be fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $7,500.

Applying the principles from Boucher and Rule 57.01, the court found the plaintiff's hours slightly excessive for the complexity of the matter and fixed costs at $10,500.00, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The applicant first mortgagee sought a declaration validating a power of sale agreement and an order expunging cautions and subsequent encumbrances registered by the respondent mortgagor and second mortgagee.

The respondents brought a cross-application seeking an injunction to restrain the sale and an extension of time to redeem the mortgage.

The court dismissed the application, finding no basis to pre-emptively expunge the registrations or declare the sale valid before closing.

The court also dismissed the cross-application, holding that the mortgagor's right to redeem was extinguished upon the mortgagee entering into an unconditional agreement of purchase and sale, and the mortgagor had not tendered the arrears or proven bad faith.