M. Wilson

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

Prior to the motion, the defendant accepted the plaintiff's Rule 49 offer to settle, resolving all issues except costs.

The court issued an endorsement setting a timetable for written costs submissions and remained seized of the matter.

Snapclarity Inc. brought an urgent motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain its former CEO and her new company from using an online mental health intake assessment questionnaire and competing against it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Snapclarity failed to establish a strong prima facie case for breach of the non-compete clause or copyright infringement, as the questionnaire was likely owned by the former CEO's consulting firm.

Furthermore, Snapclarity failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as its platform had already been sold and integrated into another company's product, and the balance of convenience favoured the responding parties.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitral decision finding it was the priority insurer for accident benefits claimed by an Alberta resident whose mother was killed in an Ontario motor vehicle accident.

The claimant had applied to the respondent insurer, who denied the claim and paid no benefits, but initiated a priority dispute against the appellant.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant, an extraterritorial insurer, was not bound by the Ontario priority rules despite being a signatory to the Power of Attorney and Undertaking (PAU).

Furthermore, the court ruled that the respondent insurer could not pursue a priority dispute because it had not first paid benefits to the claimant, violating the 'pay first and dispute later' principle.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following his convictions for multiple serious personal injury offences, including forcible confinement, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and sexual assault, all committed against his intimate partner.

The offender had a history of severe domestic violence and had previously refused treatment while incarcerated.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation under s. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code, as he demonstrated a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour showing a failure to restrain his behaviour and a likelihood of causing severe injury to future intimate partners.

Finding no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public, the court imposed an indeterminate sentence.

Sentencing for a bank robbery committed with an imitation firearm, accompanied by a written death threat to the teller, together with two breaches of probation.

The court held that denunciation, general deterrence, and protection of the public were paramount, but also considered rehabilitation given the offender's age, difficult background, and expressed desire to address alcohol misuse.

In light of the offender's lengthy robbery record and the fact that the offences were committed while on probation, a substantial penitentiary sentence was imposed.

The court ordered a global sentence of four years and ten months, credited 1010 days for pre-sentence custody, imposed the maximum three years' probation, and granted weapons prohibition and DNA orders.

The accused was charged with robbing a bank while armed with a restricted or prohibited firearm, using an imitation firearm, threatening death, and breaching probation.

The Crown relied on video surveillance, photographs, and the recognition evidence of two police officers who had prior dealings with the accused.

The court found the identification evidence compelling and convicted the accused of the lesser included offence of using an imitation firearm, as well as threatening death and breaching probation.

The Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence in a jury trial involving multiple domestic violence and sexual assault allegations.

The proposed evidence concerned prior convictions involving a former partner and included incidents of choking, threats, confinement, and sexual violence.

The court applied the analytical framework for similar fact evidence and assessed whether the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect, focusing on whether the evidence demonstrated a distinctive pattern of conduct relevant to the actus reus and consent.

The court found that two of the four prior incidents demonstrated a distinctive pattern involving jealousy-triggered violence, choking, and sexual violence, and that their probative value outweighed the risk of prejudice.

Evidence relating to the other incidents was excluded as insufficiently distinctive and overly prejudicial.

The Crown applied to have the offender declared a dangerous offender following his guilty plea to sexual assault.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record, including three prior sexual assaults, and was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and severe substance abuse issues.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation due to his pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour and failure to control his sexual impulses.

However, the court concluded that a lesser measure than an indeterminate sentence would adequately protect the public, imposing a determinate sentence of five years followed by a ten-year long-term supervision order.

An Ontario plaintiff injured while visiting New York commenced an Ontario action against the New York driver and her own insurer under the OPCF 44R underinsured motorist coverage.

The insurer asserted a cross‑claim for indemnity against the driver.

The driver moved to permanently stay the claim and cross‑claim for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter and alternatively on forum non conveniens grounds.

Applying the framework in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that none of the recognized presumptive connecting factors for tort jurisdiction were present, as the defendant resided in New York, carried on no business in Ontario, and the accident occurred in New York.

The insurer’s argument that the driver was a necessary party to its cross‑claim did not create a presumptive connecting factor.

The Ontario action and cross‑claim were permanently stayed.