Laura E. Robinson

The City of Ottawa appealed a remittal decision that found various provisions of a 1981 Agreement and related contracts governing golf course lands to be inoperative.

The Court of Appeal had previously struck down conveyancing provisions in the agreement for violating the rule against perpetuities.

The application judge held that without these provisions, the remaining obligations to operate a golf course in perpetuity fundamentally altered the parties' original bargain and were therefore inoperative.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the removal of the conveyancing provisions frustrated the balance of the agreement, rendering all provisions relating to the golf course lands void.

This decision addresses the impact of a Court of Appeal ruling that declared certain contingent property interests in a 1981 development agreement void for perpetuities.

The Superior Court was remitted to determine which other provisions of the 1981 Agreement and related contracts were affected and rendered inoperative.

The court found that the voided sections fundamentally altered the original bargain, which included a path for the evolution and potential redevelopment of the golf course lands, not a perpetual obligation to operate a golf course.

Consequently, several provisions related to the golf course's perpetual operation, sale, right of first refusal, and redevelopment path were declared inoperative.

The 40% open space principle was largely maintained but its application to golf course redevelopment was clarified.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion regarding a commercial lease and parking dispute, the successful defendant sought costs of $586,141.79 on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible and noting that Rule 49.10 limits a defendant to partial indemnity costs even when the plaintiff's claim is completely dismissed.

The court awarded the defendant costs of $398,000 on a partial indemnity basis, finding the time spent and hourly rates reasonable given the complexity and the $4.6 million claim.

The appellant was convicted at trial of sexual assault and sexual interference.

He appealed on the basis that the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons with respect to the assessment of witness credibility.

The majority of the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's reasons were sufficiently articulate in explaining how credibility issues were resolved, that the trial judge applied the proper framework to assess credibility, and that the trial judge did not misapprehend evidence.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the dissenting Court of Appeal judge.

The Professional Centre brought a motion for summary judgment against The Ottawa Hospital concerning the interpretation of parking provisions in a 49-year lease and related Memorandum of Agreement.

The Professional Centre alleged breaches regarding the availability of 250 parking spaces, remittance of revenue from 40 parking spaces, and unauthorized use of encroaching parking spaces and an access road.

The Hospital denied any breach, asserting it exercised contractual discretion in good faith.

The court dismissed all of the Professional Centre's claims, finding no breach of the lease, that the Hospital had an implied easement over the access road, and that the Professional Centre failed to prove damages, including a high vacancy rate, were caused by the alleged parking issues.

The plaintiffs, former employees and shareholders, brought a motion for refusals and undertakings and leave to amend their Statement of Claim in an oppression action.

The defendants opposed the disclosure of documents related to company valuation post-commencement of the action, arguing the valuation date should be the action's start.

The court granted leave to amend and ruled that post-commencement valuation documents were relevant, citing judicial discretion in selecting the fairest valuation date in oppression cases.

The court also addressed procedural issues regarding questions arising from undertakings, prioritizing efficiency under Rule 1.04.

The plaintiff in a medical malpractice action brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused on discovery by the defendant doctors.

The action involved allegations of negligence in connection with hip replacement and revision surgeries.

The court held that questions seeking retrospective opinions or speculation about the cause of metal fatigue and the conduct of co-defendants were improper.

However, questions regarding a defendant doctor's understanding and belief at the time of treating the plaintiff were proper and ordered to be answered.

Following a successful appeal of an arbitration award, the appellants sought costs for the appeal and two preliminary motions.

The respondents argued success was divided and disputed the scale and quantum.

The court found the appellants were entirely successful and entitled to costs for the appeal and the preliminary motions, which were necessitated by the respondents' ill-advised motion to quash.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct, and fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale at $54,284.74.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which confirmed a decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons to take no further action regarding his complaint against a physician.

The complaint arose from the physician's requirement that the applicant attend the clinic in person for a prescription renewal rather than renewing it by fax.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable and that the Committee's investigation was adequate.

The appellants appealed an arbitration award under s. 45 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by directing the boards of two corporate parties to determine the profits of a non-party US corporation.

The Superior Court of Justice agreed, finding that an arbitrator cannot bind or govern the affairs of a non-party.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the specific paragraph of the formal judgment affecting the non-party was set aside and remitted to the arbitrator with directions.

The defendants, including the former and current Commissioners of the OPP and Her Majesty the Queen, brought motions to strike portions of the plaintiffs' statement of claim alleging negligent supervision and training following an alleged assault by police officers.

The court found that the claim against the current Commissioner disclosed a reasonable cause of action but failed to plead sufficient material facts, striking it with leave to amend.

The motion to strike the claim against the former Commissioner was dismissed, as the court found the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded material facts regarding his knowledge of the officers' alleged incompetence and lack of training.

The plaintiff, Trade Capital Finance Corp., obtained a Mareva injunction over the assets of certain defendants, including The Cash House Inc. (TCHI), in a fraud action.

Maple Trust Company, a non-party, had obtained writs of seizure and sale against TCHI for unrelated costs awards.

Maple Trust moved to vary the Mareva injunction to permit it to seize funds from one of TCHI's bank accounts.

The court granted the motion, holding that a Mareva injunction is not proprietary in nature and does not give the plaintiff priority over other bona fide creditors enforcing legal process.

The injunction merely restrains the defendant from disposing of assets, not preventing lawful seizure by other creditors.

The Holmes defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their fourth motion to set aside a Mareva injunction and ancillary orders.

The motion judge had dismissed the Mareva order challenge on grounds of waiver and res judicata.

The applicant argued for leave based on conflicting decisions and doubt regarding the order's correctness.

The court denied leave, finding no conflicting decision on principle and no serious debate about the order's correctness, emphasizing the unique circumstances and the history of repeated, unsuccessful motions.

The appellant appealed a finding of civil contempt and a 30-day jail sentence for failing to comply with a default judgment requiring him to provide an accounting and produce financial documents.

The appellant argued the motion judge failed to articulate the test for contempt, erred in ordering production of documents from a Crown disclosure brief, and violated principles of fundamental justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the test for contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, properly rejected the appellant's excuse regarding the Crown brief, and afforded the appellant procedural fairness.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce answers to questions refused on cross-examination and a motion to adduce fresh evidence, following an adjournment of an underlying motion to vary a Mareva order.

The non-parties sought costs for the adjournment and the motions.

The court found the non-parties were mostly successful overall and awarded them costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amounts at $9,610 for one non-party and $4,310 for the other after assessing the reasonableness of the claimed fees.

The plaintiff, Trade Capital Finance Corp., brought a motion to compel Carlo De Maria to answer questions from his cross-examination on an affidavit supporting a motion by non-parties 2454904 Ontario Inc. and Red Quest Holdings Inc. to vary a Mareva Injunction.

The plaintiff also sought to admit fresh evidence related to banking activities of The Cash House Inc. and DoUknow Inc. The court granted the motion to admit fresh evidence to the extent it supported compelling an answer to one specific question (Q121) regarding DoUknow Inc.'s operating capital, finding it relevant to the true value of The Cash House Inc. shares and the proposed transaction.

All other questions and undertakings from the May 17, 2016 cross-examination were dismissed, as were undertakings from a November 25, 2015 cross-examination, which were deemed moot.

The plaintiff sought an adjournment of a motion brought by non-parties to vary an interim Mareva injunction.

The adjournment was requested to allow the plaintiff to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from an affiant whose affidavit supported the motion to vary.

The court granted the adjournment, applying established principles for judicial discretion in granting adjournments, emphasizing the overall objective of a just determination on the merits and the need for the plaintiff to adequately prepare its opposition.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision granting the respondent College declaratory and injunctive relief for unauthorized practice and unauthorized use of protected titles.

The appellants argued that the language proficiency requirement in the Registration Regulation was discriminatory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's finding that the appellants were barred from advancing the constitutional argument due to issue estoppel and abuse of process, as the same issue had been previously decided against them by the Divisional Court.

The Court held that defence evidence about an unknown third party suspect is governed by general admissibility principles: relevance plus a balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect.

The trial judge erred by requiring proof on a balance of probabilities that the similar incident occurred and by treating the issue as known third party suspect evidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the order for a new trial was upheld.