Jennifer Schwartz

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim as an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs, two cancer researchers, had previously been investigated by the hospital for research misconduct, resulting in the closure of their lab.

They challenged these decisions through multiple administrative appeals and judicial reviews.

The court found that the civil claim, which alleged bad faith, conspiracy, and breach of contract, raised the same factual and substantive issues that were or could have been litigated in the administrative proceedings.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed as an abuse of process.

A corporation charged with regulatory offences arising from a critical workplace injury brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

The defendant argued that the delay from charge to trial exceeded the presumptive 18-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that although the delay exceeded the ceiling, transitional provisions applied because both parties had relied on the previous legal framework requiring proof of prejudice.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defendant had failed to actively pursue expedited proceedings, had only once raised Charter rights, and had consented to all adjournments.

The court also found the matter was complex and serious, involving a severe workplace injury and six days of trial time with competing expert evidence.

The respondents were seasonal agricultural workers who were seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident shortly after arriving in Ontario.

They remained in Ontario for medical treatment after their work permits expired and sought continued OHIP coverage.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board found they were eligible for continued coverage.

The appellant appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the plain wording of the regulation requires a valid work permit for OHIP eligibility, and the respondents ceased to be eligible once their permits expired.

Following a successful fraud trial brought under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs payable to two successful creditor plaintiffs.

The defendants had engaged in fraudulent conveyances, document alteration, and litigation conduct that delayed the trial and attempted to mislead the court.

The court held that such conduct justified an award of full indemnity costs, an exceptional remedy reserved for egregious dishonesty and abuse of the judicial process.

After reviewing the draft bills of costs, the court reduced certain duplicative and insufficiently documented claims but fixed substantial full indemnity costs payable to each plaintiff.

The defendants were held jointly and severally liable for the costs, payable forthwith.

The plaintiffs, creditors of the bankrupt defendant, brought an action to set aside the conveyances of multiple real properties as fraudulent.

The defendant had transferred the properties to related individuals and shell corporations for nominal consideration shortly after defaulting on a business loan.

The court found that the defendant engaged in a pattern of dishonest conduct, including forging documents and manipulating trust declarations, to shield her assets from creditors.

Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the court held that the conveyances were fraudulent and void under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The properties were ordered to be sold with proceeds distributed to the plaintiffs and the bankruptcy trustee.