James Brown

The applicants (Suncor/Auger) brought a motion to compel the third party (EllisDon) to properly answer discovery undertakings related to electronic documents from its "EdgeBuilder System" database.

EllisDon had produced a portable drive containing 37,899 documents but without unique identifiers or sufficient searchability for efficient litigation.

The court found EllisDon failed to meet e-discovery requirements, emphasizing the need for unique identifiers and co-operation in discovery planning as per the Sedona Canada Principles.

The motion was granted, ordering EllisDon to produce a revised, accessible, and searchable version of the portable drive with unique identifiers and to engage in discovery planning.

No costs were awarded due to the parties' mutual failure to engage in discovery planning earlier.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against a general practitioner and a specialist surgeon following complications from bowel surgery that resulted in a severe necrotizing soft tissue infection.

The plaintiffs alleged the specialist failed to follow up on PET scan results and the general practitioner failed to accurately communicate those results.

The court found that while the specialist breached the standard of care by failing to follow up, the plaintiffs failed to establish causation, as the patient's history of seeking alternative treatments and rejecting medical advice indicated he would not have complied with the recommended treatment plan.

The court found the general practitioner met the standard of care.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured when the hood of her parked vehicle collapsed on her while she was refilling the windshield washer fluid.

She sought a declaration that her injuries were sustained in an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The insurer argued that routine maintenance did not constitute the 'use or operation' of a vehicle.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding that checking and topping up fluid levels is an ordinary and well-known activity to which automobiles are put, thereby satisfying the purpose test for SABS coverage.

Following a motion regarding third and fourth party claims, the court determined costs.

The third party was unsuccessful in dismissing the defendants' third party claim, and the fourth parties were unsuccessful in striking the third party's fourth party claim.

The court found the third party's position regarding the third party claim to be improper and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants.

Although the fourth parties were unsuccessful, the court awarded them partial costs due to the third party's misleading conduct in issuing the fourth party claim.

The third party was ordered to pay costs to both the defendants and the fourth parties.

The third party brought a motion to either strike the third party claim against it or, alternatively, for leave to continue the fourth party claim against the fourth parties.

The action was originally commenced under the Construction Lien Act, which requires leave to add third or fourth parties.

Leave was not sought when the claims were issued.

The court found that the third party claim was saved by a previous order and acquiescence.

The court granted leave nunc pro tunc to issue the fourth party claim, finding it appropriate as the claim was issued within the limitation period and the action had practically moved to the ordinary track.

A parenting and child support trial concerning a young child whose parents never cohabited and had a history of significant conflict regarding parenting arrangements.

The applicant sought sole custody and a shared parenting schedule, while the respondent sought sole custody with structured access and table child support.

Applying the best interests test under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found the parties lacked the communication and cooperation necessary for joint custody and that the respondent had historically assumed responsibility for the child’s education, health care, and primary decision‑making.

Concerns regarding the applicant’s stability, credibility, residential instability, and ability to ensure school readiness supported limiting overnight access during the school week.

The respondent was granted sole custody with structured access to the applicant and child support based on the Child Support Guidelines.

In a child protection status review proceeding, the child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking custody of the child to the mother, termination of the supervision order, no access to the father, and a restraining order.

The father opposed and sought a trial and placement of the child with him.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, finding ongoing protection concerns regarding the father including domestic violence history, inability to cooperate with the agency, inconsistent access, problematic interactions with the child, and lack of a viable parenting plan.

The court determined that continued access would undermine the child's stability with the mother and was not in the child’s best interests.

Custody was granted to the mother with no access to the father and a restraining order issued.

In a family law motion, the responding parent sought leave under Rule 11(3) of the Family Law Rules to amend pleadings at the last minute to add a claim for retroactive child support of approximately $19,700.

The amendment was sought after extensive litigation steps, including conferences and preparation for a scheduled motion addressing parenting and support issues.

The court held that the proposed amendment would disadvantage the other party and that the prejudice could not be adequately remedied through costs or an adjournment, particularly given the delay and the impact on pending parenting issues involving children.

The court emphasized the importance of diligent litigation conduct and timely case management in family proceedings.

Leave to amend the pleadings was refused.

The appellants appealed an order enforcing a settlement reflected in minutes of settlement.

They argued that a term requiring execution of a release satisfactory to all parties made the settlement conditional, ambiguous, and unenforceable.

The court rejected those submissions, holding that the motion judge found the parties had agreed to the form of release and that finding was not challenged.

The appeal was dismissed with agreed costs to the respondents.

The accused pleaded guilty to nine charges spanning multiple offences including assaults on her children and niece, assault causing bodily harm to an intimate partner, robbery, breach of bail conditions, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused had been in custody for approximately 292 days prior to sentencing.

The court imposed a global sentence of 17 months imprisonment concurrent with 13 months for assault causing bodily harm, with additional concurrent sentences for lesser offences, followed by 24 months probation with strict conditions.

The court applied Gladue principles in moderating the sentence while maintaining denunciation and deterrence.