M. Kelly

The Plaintiff, Matbridge Investments Ltd., brought a motion seeking an order for the Defendants to answer undertakings regarding the production of lawyers' files and for partial summary judgment of $37,500 based on a promissory note.

The Defendants, Christopher Culligan and The Quiet Coach Inc., opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for leave to amend their statement of defence to plead equitable set-off.

The court dismissed the Plaintiff's motion regarding the undertakings, finding no agreement for the Defendants to bear the costs.

The court granted the Defendants' cross-motion to amend their statement of defence, finding the delay was not inordinate and the proposed equitable set-off defence was not statute-barred.

The court also dismissed the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the promissory note, concluding that the issue could not be readily bifurcated and involved genuine issues requiring a trial.

The appellant appealed a final order directing the partition and sale of a jointly owned property under the Partition Act.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by ordering the sale despite a triable issue regarding a trust claim and by failing to find the respondent's conduct was malicious, vexatious, or oppressive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant conceded the conduct issue during oral argument.

The court found no error in the motion judge's application of the relevant legal principles, as the appellant failed to establish prejudice arising from the sale.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order for the partition and sale of a property under the Partition Act.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by ordering the sale despite a triable issue regarding a trust claim and by failing to find the respondent's conduct was malicious, vexatious, or oppressive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the respondent's desire to untangle financial affairs was reasonable and the appellant failed to establish prejudice arising from the sale.

The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of drug trafficking involving fentanyl and buprenorphine.

The court considered a joint sentencing submission recommending a global sentence of four years and one and a half months, with significant credit for pre-trial custody leaving a custodial term of two years less a day.

The sentencing judge reviewed the offender’s Gladue report detailing Indigenous background factors, intergenerational residential school trauma, addiction issues, and mental health challenges.

The court emphasized that Gladue principles must inform sentencing while recognizing the seriousness of fentanyl trafficking and the offender’s prior criminal record.

The joint submission was accepted and ancillary orders including a DNA order and lifetime weapons prohibition were imposed.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a vessel causing death and operating a vessel with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg causing death, following a tragic boating accident where a water skier was struck and killed by the boat's propeller.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the driver of the boat at the time of the collision.

While the accused made statements shortly after the accident suggesting she was the driver, the court found these statements unreliable due to her hysterical state.

The only eyewitness who testified the accused was driving had significant inconsistencies in his evidence.

Applying the W.(D.) test, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was operating the vessel, resulting in an acquittal on all charges.

The applicant union applied for certification of security guards employed by the responding party.

The responding party argued that the Ontario Labour Relations Board lacked constitutional jurisdiction because 90% of its security services were provided to federal government departments and agencies under a detailed federal contract.

The Board held that while the provision of security services may be reasonably incidental to the federal undertakings, it was not integral or essential to their core operations.

Therefore, the employment relationship fell within provincial jurisdiction.

The Board found it had jurisdiction and granted the certification.

The complainant alleged age discrimination against his employer and union because a pre-retirement vacation provision in the collective agreement granted extra vacation time only to employees aged 61 and over with 25 years of service.

The complainant had the required service but was not 61.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the provision constituted direct age discrimination, it was protected under section 13(1) of the Human Rights Code as a special program designed to relieve the hardship older workers face when transitioning to retirement.

The complaint was dismissed.