Kevin Whitaker

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking default judgment and to strike the defendant’s defence.

The defendant brought a motion under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the claim without leave to amend.

The court found the plaintiff had filed no evidentiary record and provided no basis for default or summary judgment.

The claim was struck on multiple grounds, including statutory inadmissibility of the plaintiff’s proposed evidence under the Regulated Health Professions Act, absence of allegations overcoming statutory immunity, and failure to plead a duty of care.

The court concluded that the claim was fundamentally inconsistent with settled legal principles and declined to grant leave to amend.

The plaintiffs brought an action for rescission of a master franchise agreement and damages under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

The defendants failed to provide a proper disclosure document and breached their duty of fair dealing.

The trial proceeded in the absence of the defendants.

The court granted the plaintiffs' claims, declaring the agreement rescinded and awarding damages for the franchise fees, operating losses, unpaid fees, and breach of the duty of fair dealing, along with costs.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an action alleging breach of an employment contract, breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful resignation, and intentional interference with economic relations after a senior employee left to join a competitor.

The court found that the record contained extensive contested evidence, numerous factual disputes, and significant credibility issues relating to the scope of contractual obligations, alleged non-solicitation duties, and the conduct of the parties after resignation.

Applying the principles governing summary judgment, the court concluded that the issues required a full trial to properly assess the evidence and competing theories of liability.

The motion was therefore dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the responding party.

Following the dismissal of a third party claim, the third party defendant sought an award of costs.

No responding submissions were filed despite direction from the court.

After reviewing the submissions and the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed costs in favour of the third party defendant.

Costs were ordered payable forthwith by the defendants.

Following earlier rulings on a derivative leave motion in estate litigation, the court addressed outstanding procedural directions and the issue of costs for five related motions.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $144,000 for work connected primarily to the derivative issues.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the proportionality principles discussed in Boucher v. Public Accountants, the court held that the requested amount far exceeded the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful parties for a one‑day motion.

Substantial indemnity costs were denied.

The court fixed costs payable by the defendants jointly and severally at $55,000 inclusive of taxes and interest.

A solicitor brought an application to set aside a consent order referring the solicitor’s account to an Assessment Officer for assessment.

The solicitor argued the Assessment Officer lacked jurisdiction and that consent did not prevent the court from setting aside the order.

The court held that the only dispute raised by the client concerned the quantum of the account and that the assessment properly fell within the officer’s jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act.

The interests of justice did not justify setting aside the consent order.

The application was dismissed and the client was awarded costs.

A long‑serving employee brought an action for wrongful dismissal and oppression after being terminated for cause following a drunk driving accident involving the employer’s vehicle.

The employee had consumed alcohol during a lunch break, drove the employer’s truck without authorization, and caused a serious rollover collision resulting in severe injuries and a criminal conviction.

The court conducted a contextual analysis of just cause, considering the employee’s 23 years of service and clean disciplinary record against the seriousness of the misconduct.

The court held that drunk driving while operating the employer’s vehicle during the course of employment constituted serious misconduct that fundamentally undermined the employment relationship.

The wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed and the court declined to address mitigation or the oppression claim.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board under the Health Care Consent Act confirming that he was incapable of consenting to antipsychotic medication and maintaining his status as an involuntary patient.

The court applied the reasonableness standard of review, emphasizing the Board’s expertise in assessing capacity and mixed questions of fact and law.

The court found the Board provided procedural fairness, appropriately considered the evidence including hearsay, and reasonably relied on the psychiatrist’s testimony.

The Board correctly applied the two‑part statutory test for capacity, finding the patient unable to understand relevant treatment information or apply it to his circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.