E. Krajewska

The applicant sought specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The respondent vendor refused to close the transaction after realizing that the contract stipulated HST was 'included in' the purchase price, meaning she would net less than anticipated.

The respondent argued there was a lack of consensus ad idem and unilateral mistake.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the contract language unambiguous and the mistake to be the respondent's own error in judgment.

The court granted specific performance, holding that the property was unique in the context of a hot real estate market and damages would be inadequate.

The respondents, Trillium Gift of Life Network and University Health Network, brought motions to dismiss and transfer applications challenging the constitutionality of liver transplant waitlist criteria for patients with alcohol-related liver disease.

UHN moved to dismiss the application against it, arguing the Charter did not apply to its clinical decisions.

Trillium moved to transfer the application to the Divisional Court, arguing it involved the review of a statutory power.

The Superior Court dismissed both motions, finding it was not plain and obvious that the Charter did not apply to UHN's adoption of the criteria, and affirming the Superior Court's inherent jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies without bifurcating the proceedings.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a mental health centre.

He argued the Board erred by failing to consider an absolute or conditional discharge, and by refusing a provision that would allow him to live in 24-hour supervised accommodation.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board did not err in refusing a discharge given the appellant's ongoing risk to the community.

However, the Court found the Board erred in law and misapprehended evidence by refusing the supervised accommodation provision, which was recommended for therapeutic reasons and to place the appellant on a waiting list.

Despite finding this error, the Court declined to alter the disposition due to fresh evidence and a pending hearing regarding a significant increase in the restriction of the appellant's liberty.

Appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from an Ontario Review Board disposition.

The appellant challenged findings related to the index offences and the driving prohibition contained in the Board’s current order.

The Court of Appeal held it had no authority on this appeal to revisit the facts underlying the index offences and found the driving prohibition appropriate in light of the offence circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board imposing a detention order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition given the appellant's history of non-compliance, unstructured lifestyle, and need for daily monitoring to abstain from substance abuse and rule out a schizoaffective disorder diagnosis.

The appellant appealed from a Divisional Court order dismissing an appeal from a Master's refusal to grant an extension of time to serve a notice of action and statement of claim.

The appellant had delayed service by approximately 30 days for tactical reasons.

The Master refused the extension, finding prejudice to the respondent due to the 13-year lapse since the relevant events and the destruction of documents.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Master erred in law by failing to distinguish between prejudice caused by the passage of time since the events and prejudice caused by the delay in service.

As the 30-day delay in service caused no prejudice, the extension was granted.

The appellant sued the Center for Addiction and Mental Health for allegedly improper detention, treatment, and medication while involuntarily detained.

The respondent moved to dismiss the action, supported by an expert report stating the standard of care was met and exceeded.

The motion judge dismissed the action because the appellant provided no evidence to challenge the expert opinion.

The Court of Appeal found no error and dismissed the appeal.