Olanyi Parsons

The court considered a motion by the moving defendants for an order requiring the plaintiff, River City Christian Reformed Church, to pay security for costs under Rule 56.01(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, a not-for-profit corporation, sought relief for alleged fraud, misrepresentation, breach of duty, oppression, and unjust enrichment relating to a failed property acquisition.

The court found that the plaintiff was impecunious and that its claim was not plainly devoid of merit, and therefore dismissed the motion for security for costs.

Suyi Cao brought a motion to stay the enforcement of a $45,000 order in favour of Monkhouse Law Professional Corporation, pending the conclusion of her breach of contract action against them.

Monkhouse Law brought a cross-motion to dismiss Cao's breach of contract action as an abuse of process, arguing issue estoppel.

The court dismissed Cao's motion to stay, finding she did not meet the stringent two-part test for staying a final order.

The court granted Monkhouse Law's motion to dismiss Cao's claim, holding that the issues raised in her breach of contract action had already been implicitly decided by Dawe J. in the prior assessment proceedings, thus satisfying the elements of issue estoppel.

The appellant teacher appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers dismissing his application for reinstatement and revoking his teaching certificate.

The appellant's certificate was automatically revoked following 2020 amendments to the Ontario College of Teachers Act due to a 2009 finding of professional misconduct involving sexual abuse of a student.

The appellant argued the panel erred by giving retrospective effect to the amendments and imposing a more severe penalty than his original two-year suspension.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the presumption against retrospectivity was rebutted by the express language of the amended legislation, which clearly intended for the revocation provision to apply retrospectively.

The plaintiff purchaser failed to close a real estate transaction after being unable to secure financing.

The defendant vendor subsequently sold the property for a higher price and brought a summary judgment motion to retain the $70,000 deposit.

The plaintiff sought relief from forfeiture, arguing she lacked capacity due to mental health struggles when signing the agreement.

The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding no inequality of bargaining power or improvident bargain, and ordered the deposit forfeited.

The appellant client appealed a motion judge's assessment of her former solicitor's account.

The motion judge had found the assessment officer lacked jurisdiction due to a contingency fee agreement, but relied on the officer's evidentiary record to conduct his own quantum meruit assessment, reducing the fees to $45,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reliance on the assessment officer's report or his application of the Cohen factors.

The Court also lifted a sealing order that had been improperly requested.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario following an appeal that proceeded in writing.

The court awarded costs of $6,500, including disbursements and taxes, to the respondent, The University of Toronto.

The court noted that the appeal issues were not complex and largely replicated submissions made at first instance.

At the sixth case management conference, the court addressed the scheduling of various motions proposed by the parties, including motions for summary judgment, undertakings, and further examinations.

The court granted a motion on consent to allow a plaintiff who had reached the age of majority to continue the action in her own capacity.

The court directed that the motions regarding undertakings and refusals be heard by the Case Management Master before any summary judgment motions are scheduled, emphasizing the need for effective case management.

The appellant sought to overturn the denial of an interlocutory injunction aimed at preventing the enforcement of a trespass notice issued by the respondent university.

The notice was impeding the appellant's studies and jeopardizing his student visa status, pending a Human Rights Tribunal proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the application judge's assessment of evidence or misapplication of the interlocutory injunction test.

The court upheld the finding that the balance of convenience favored the university, given the serious threats perceived and the inadequacy of the medical information provided by the appellant.

This fifth case management endorsement addresses several procedural matters, including the rescheduling of examinations for discovery after the plaintiffs failed to attend, the completion of mandatory mediation, the transition of a minor plaintiff to an adult plaintiff requiring an order to continue, and the status of demands for particulars and freedom of information requests.

It also sets out directions for potential summary judgment motions and schedules the next case management conference.

At a fourth case management conference, the court addressed ongoing procedural issues in an action involving self-represented plaintiffs.

The court directed that future examinations for discovery proceed orally rather than by written interrogatory due to complications.

The court declined to waive mandatory mediation and deferred the plaintiffs' request to schedule a summary judgment motion until they could properly frame it in accordance with the principles of partial summary judgment.

Various other procedural directions were made, including delegating certain discovery motions to a Case Management Master.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint that police officers discriminated against him based on race when they arrested and charged him following a neighbour dispute.

The applicant argued the HRTO's decision was unreasonable, alleging the police response was disproportionate and influenced by racial stereotypes, and that the HRTO showed bias in its credibility assessments and drawing of adverse inferences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO applied the correct legal principles, its credibility findings were entitled to high deference, and its overall decision was reasonable.

Cashbloom Canada, ULC sought summary judgment against Ridgeway Design Centre Inc. and Jennifer Millar Giudice for an outstanding debt from a series of loan agreements.

The court dismissed unpleaded defences raised by the defendants regarding misleading agreements, contravention of the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act, and criminal interest rates due to lack of pleading and evidence.

However, a genuine issue for trial was found regarding Mrs. Giudice's defence of innocent or negligent misrepresentation concerning her personal guarantee, as an email from Cashbloom suggested no impact on personal credit.

Summary judgment was granted against Ridgeway Design Centre Inc. for $119,200.44 plus interest and costs, but refused against Mrs. Giudice, with that part of the action proceeding to trial.

The action against Carmelo Giudice was dismissed on consent.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's decision to strike her claim for negligent investigation on the basis that it was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period.

The appellant argued that the negligent investigation claim was interconnected with her breach of privacy claim, which the motion judge had allowed to proceed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the two claims protect different legal interests and are distinct.

The motion judge's costs award was also upheld.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on its action for a debt owed under a share purchase agreement and to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant alleged unwritten collateral agreements and illegal conduct by the plaintiff but provided no evidence to support these claims.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the defendant's allegations were bald and self-serving.

The court also found the defendant's counterclaim was statute-barred.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $289,000, and the counterclaim was dismissed.