Jed Blackburn

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Parghi J. dated November 21, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The Plaintiffs (Arkland Homes Inc. et al. and Zhen Kang) brought an action seeking declarations regarding mortgage standing and to set aside property sales.

This decision addresses three interlocutory motions: the Plaintiffs' motion for an injunction to restrain the sale of the Bannatyne Property, Defendant Qiong Huang's motion for possession of 177 Rumsey Road, and the Plaintiffs' cross-motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on 171 Rumsey Road.

The court granted the Plaintiffs' injunction and CPL motions, finding serious issues to be tried regarding the mortgage defaults, the application of a significant payment, and allegations of bad faith and improper conduct by the Defendants Ming Wei Liu and Yizi Feng, including the hasty sale of properties below market value and an alarming "self-help" attempt to evict occupants.

The court denied Ms. Huang's motion for possession, concluding that whether she was a bona fide purchaser for value was a genuine issue requiring trial.

The court also ordered consolidation and case management for all related litigation.

The University of Toronto appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding a student $710.27 in general damages and $1,000 in punitive damages over a disputed tuition refund.

The student had dropped a full-year course after the refund deadline but argued the policy was ambiguous.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in fact and law.

The court held the university's calendar and refund policy clearly stated the financial penalties for late withdrawal, and the university's conduct did not meet the high threshold for punitive damages.

The original claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff, an aluminum scrap brokerage, sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain a former employee from competing against it.

The plaintiff alleged the employee breached fiduciary duties and a restrictive covenant in his employment agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case.

The employee was not a fiduciary because the plaintiff was not peculiarly vulnerable to him, as deals in the industry are driven by price rather than relationships.

Furthermore, the restrictive covenant was an overly broad and unenforceable non-competition clause.

The plaintiff also failed to prove irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the employee.

The appellant tenant requested an adjournment of her appeal to allow additional time to perfect it.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment to July 16, 2018, on strict conditions.

These conditions included the ongoing payment of rent, providing evidence of an application to an assisted living facility, and payment of $750 in costs to the respondent landlord.

The applicants, engaged in combating government corruption in Malaysia, sought a Norwich Pharmacal order to compel financial institutions to produce confidential information about a Canadian real estate group.

The applicants suspected the group was funded by proceeds of foreign corruption and contemplated a private criminal prosecution for money laundering and receipt of proceeds of crime.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants lacked reasonable grounds to believe an indictable offence had been committed, and that it would be inappropriate to use the court's inherent civil jurisdiction to bypass the careful balance struck by Parliament in the Criminal Code for criminal investigations and private prosecutions.

This is a costs decision on appeal from a Superior Court judgment.

The appellants appealed the decision of Justice Fred Myers dated April 12, 2017.

The Court of Appeal reviewed written submissions on costs and determined that the appellants must pay the respondent's costs in the fixed amount of $30,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The respondent appealed a Superior Court judgment that granted the applicant's application to enforce her rights under a Governance Agreement concerning the replacement of Board members of Spectrum Health Care.

The appellants argued the application judge erred in interpreting the contract, should have stayed the application pursuant to an arbitration clause in the shareholders' agreement, and erred in alternative findings regarding oppression remedy and interim injunction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the Governance Agreement or his analysis of the alternate remedies.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by Metrolinx and Infrastructure Ontario to disqualify them from a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process for a major infrastructure project.

The applicants were disqualified because they failed to include a required Accounting Firm Letter (AFL) in their submission.

The court held that the disqualification decision was not subject to judicial review as it was not an exercise of a statutory power of decision.

Even if it were reviewable, the court found that the respondents did not breach any duty of fairness and their decision to strictly enforce the RFQ requirements was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a letter from the Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada denying his request to write the pharmacist qualification examination for a fifth time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the letter was not a reviewable decision but merely a statement of the existing rule limiting attempts.

The court also rejected the applicant's arguments that the Act creating the Board and the rule limiting examination attempts were ultra vires, noting that the Board does not regulate the profession but merely administers an examination that provincial licensing bodies may use.

Lori Lord sought to enforce a Governance Agreement or, alternatively, relief under the oppression remedy against Clearspring Spectrum Holdings L.P. and Clearspring Capital Partners (US) II L.P. The respondents sought to stay the application pending arbitration.

The court found Ms. Lord was not a party to any arbitration agreement and could not be compelled to arbitrate.

The court held that Clearspring was in breach of the Governance Agreement, which was enforceable and not in conflict with the shareholders' agreement.

Alternatively, Ms. Lord's reasonable expectations were unfairly prejudiced, warranting an oppression remedy.

The application was granted, enforcing the Governance Agreement.

Following reasons on a motion concerning undertakings and production of documents in a wrongful dismissal action, the court determined costs and clarified a prior order.

The court exercised its discretion under Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to amend the earlier order to include travel-related records evidencing the employee’s attendance at certain meetings as the employer’s sole representative.

In assessing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, the court found the motion moderately complex and necessary for the employee to advance the claim, particularly given delayed responses to undertakings.

The employee’s bill of costs was largely accepted with partial indemnity adjustments to counsel’s hourly rate.

Costs were awarded for fees, disbursements, and applicable HST, with no additional costs for the written submissions on costs.

The appellant appealed from a Superior Court judgment in a dispute involving family medicine program respondents and universities.

The Court of Appeal held that, assuming amendments to the Regulated Health Profession Act applied, they applied to the College and not to any of the respondents.

The court further held that the action was an abuse of process for the reasons given below.

The appeal was dismissed with fixed costs payable to the respondents.

The defendants brought a motion to strike a self-represented plaintiff’s claim arising from repeated unsuccessful attempts to obtain a family medicine residency position.

The plaintiff alleged negligence, bad faith, unequal treatment, and Charter violations after being denied interviews and admission to residency programs.

The court held the action was an attempt to re‑litigate issues previously determined in multiple proceedings and was barred by cause of action estoppel and abuse of process.

The pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action and failed to establish viable claims in negligence, contract, or discrimination.

The court also held that academic admissions decisions fall within universities’ broad discretion and are reviewable, if at all, by judicial review rather than civil action.