Laura Dryden Brazil

The appellant, an operator of diagnostic imaging clinics, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding the Minister's requirement to reimburse over $1.1 million in facility fees.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by classifying the Ministry's sole witness as a 'litigant's employee with expertise' without giving the appellant prior notice or an opportunity to make submissions and call reply evidence.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an expropriation by the Ministry of Transportation.

The parties had not yet engaged in settlement discussions pending the exchange of appraisal reports.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing for September 2025 and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The appellant appealed the summary judgment dismissing her two actions against the respondent, alleging misapprehension of evidence, erroneous refusal of an adjournment, and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, concluding that the appellant failed to raise a genuine issue requiring a trial and did not establish any error in the exercise of discretion, bias, or procedural unfairness.

A Case Management Conference was held to organize the hearing of a claim for compensation brought by the claimant against the respondent under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal approved the revised Procedural Order submitted by the parties and scheduled a five-day Merit Hearing to commence on November 4, 2024, by video.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion seeking an order for the preservation of $41,620 in Canadian currency, pending an application for civil forfeiture under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the currency was proceeds of unlawful activity, citing its discovery with drugs, a firearm magazine, multiple phones, and identification in other names, as well as the interested party's admission of being at an "underground casino" and outstanding fraud charges.

The court also determined that preserving the currency was in the interests of justice, as it was not "manifestly harsh" or "draconian" especially given the interested party's consent.

The motion for preservation was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion to examine representatives of two non-party corporate shareholders (Lake and JLA) under Rule 31.03(8), arguing the action was being defended for their immediate benefit due to an indemnification agreement and litigation accrual fund.

The plaintiff also sought a further and better affidavit of documents.

The court found that the non-parties had a direct financial interest in the outcome and were beneficial parties.

The court ordered the examinations of the non-parties' principals, limited to 10 hours total, and ordered the defendant to serve a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal damages after being terminated without cause.

The employer argued the employment contract limited termination pay to base salary and required the plaintiff to sign a release to receive an enhanced lump sum.

The court found the contract language was not sufficiently clear to exclude the value of unvested Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) and bonuses from the notice period compensation.

The court also held it was unreasonable for the employer to withhold the lump sum payment because the plaintiff refused to sign a release while the compensation amount was in dispute.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for $427,891.18.

Snapclarity Inc. brought an urgent motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain its former CEO and her new company from using an online mental health intake assessment questionnaire and competing against it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Snapclarity failed to establish a strong prima facie case for breach of the non-compete clause or copyright infringement, as the questionnaire was likely owned by the former CEO's consulting firm.

Furthermore, Snapclarity failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as its platform had already been sold and integrated into another company's product, and the balance of convenience favoured the responding parties.

The plaintiff sought a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a condominium unit following a failed purchase transaction involving alleged fraud and a forged signature.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found no triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the land, as his interest was lost upon failure to close.

Even if a triable issue existed, the property was not unique, and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The court emphasized that the vendor (Monarch) was an innocent party and should not be unduly prejudiced by holding the unit.

Costs were awarded to the responding defendants.

The defendants in two construction lien actions, Pier 27 and L Tower, brought motions seeking orders for the plaintiff, Yuanda Canada Enterprises Ltd., to post security for costs totaling over $1 million.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the defendants failed to establish "good reason to believe" that the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The court emphasized the high threshold for such motions, requiring indicia of insolvency or instability, and noted that the certified basic holdback owed to the plaintiff by the Pier 27 Defendants, exceeding the claimed security for costs, constituted a sufficient asset.

Bell Canada sought an interlocutory injunction against Cogeco Cable Canada GP Inc. regarding two aspects of Cogeco's new advertising campaign: the phrase "the best Internet experience in your neighbourhood" and the rebranding of Internet packages with the prefix "Ultra" (e.g., UltraFibre 250).

Bell alleged false and misleading representations under the Competition Act and Trade-marks Act, as well as common-law claims.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions.

It found a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored granting an injunction against the use of "the best Internet experience in your neighbourhood" as Cogeco could not objectively claim to offer the best speed and performance in all areas.

However, the court denied an injunction regarding the "UltraFibre" branding, deeming it puffery when accompanied by specific speed commitments.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the defendants for allegedly conspiring to fix prices of cathode ray tubes (CDTs) and colour picture tubes (CPTs).

The plaintiff asserted causes of action under the Competition Act and for common law unlawful means conspiracy, including claims on behalf of umbrella purchasers.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, an identifiable class existed, the claims raised common issues, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the litigation plan was workable.

The motion for certification was granted.

The Nortel group of companies filed for insolvency protection across multiple jurisdictions.

Following the sale of Nortel's assets, approximately $7.3 billion was placed in escrow.

The trial judge ordered that these lockbox funds be allocated on a pro rata basis among the various debtor estates, finding that Nortel operated as a highly integrated multinational enterprise and that the master research and development agreement did not govern allocation upon insolvency.

Several parties sought leave to appeal under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeals were not prima facie meritorious, did not raise issues of significance to the practice, and would unduly hinder the progress of the proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought motions for settlement approval and fee approval in several class actions alleging price-fixing in the automotive parts industry.

The court certified the actions against Yazaki and Chiyoda for settlement purposes.

The court approved settlements with Yazaki and Chiyoda totaling over $11 million, noting that class counsel provided supplementary evidence demonstrating that the settlement amounts fell within the zone of reasonableness.

The court also approved class counsel's 25 percent contingency fee request.

The defendant brought a motion seeking security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing there was good reason to believe the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

The court reviewed evidence including alleged asset transfers, a bonding company's security enforcement, delayed corporate filings, lien claims, and non-payment of previous costs orders.

The court held that the moving party failed to meet the required evidentiary threshold showing indicia of insolvency or corporate instability.

Much of the evidence was speculative, hearsay, or insufficient to establish asset insufficiency.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed.

The moving party, Cobra Power Inc., sought costs following its successful motion to refer the action to a Master and the responding party's abandonment of a stay motion.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs for the reference motion and full indemnity costs for the stay motion, finding that the responding party engaged in unreasonable delay tactics and made groundless, shrill allegations of professional misconduct against opposing counsel.

The moving party sought an order referring the action to a master for trial together with, or immediately after, related construction lien proceedings arising from the same rail maintenance facility project.

The court held that the actions shared central questions of fact and law, including responsibility for project delay and resulting losses, and involved overlapping parties, witnesses, documents, and damages.

The court also found that a prolonged review of project documentation and accounting issues made reference under Rule 54 appropriate.

The objection based on s. 58(1) of the Construction Lien Act failed because, in the circumstances, no pleadings remained open.

The motion was granted and costs were left to the master.

The court addressed procedural disputes arising in a construction-related action where the plaintiff sought repayment of funds allegedly paid for electrical work not performed, while the defendant denied liability and counterclaimed.

A prior order had transferred the matter to Toronto and contemplated referral to a master managing related construction lien proceedings.

The plaintiff appealed the venue decision and sought a stay pending appeal while simultaneously attempting to schedule a summary judgment motion.

The court emphasized that lawyers’ duty to fearlessly advance their client’s case must be exercised consistently with fairness, cooperation, and the goals of accessible civil justice.

To resolve procedural gridlock, the court ordered that the plaintiff’s motion for a stay pending appeal and the defendant’s motion to refer the matter to the master be heard together on an expedited basis.

The appellant challenged a summary judgment dismissing its claim for alleged breaches of non-competition and non-solicitation obligations by former employees and a competing entity.

The Court of Appeal held that the evidentiary record advanced by the appellant consisted of bald allegations and a small number of suspicious incidents that were fully explained by the respondents.

Because the appellant did not cross-examine or otherwise meaningfully challenge those explanations, there were no genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court held the full appreciation test was satisfied without a trial and dismissed the appeal, with fixed costs to the respondents.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasons of the lower court judge, and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $10,000.