Leigh Harrison-Wilson

The plaintiffs purchased a residential property from the defendants.

After moving in, the plaintiffs discovered the property had previously been used as a marijuana grow-op.

The plaintiffs sued the vendors, their real estate agent, and the brokerage for misrepresentation and negligence.

The vendor defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the action against them, claiming they had no knowledge of the grow-op.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the vendors' credibility and knowledge, and that granting partial summary judgment would risk inconsistent findings given the intertwined claims against the real estate agent and brokerage.

This decision addresses the costs for the successful defence of Donna Hixson against a claim brought by Elena Modanese.

Ms. Hixson had previously been awarded $15,000 for a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the claim against her.

She sought additional costs for the overall defence of the action, submitting a bill for $33,781.94 (after deducting the prior award).

Elena Modanese argued for an additional award of $2,000.

The court reviewed the bill of costs and, applying established criteria, awarded Ms. Hixson an additional $20,000, bringing her total costs award to $35,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

Elena Modanese sued her son Sante Modanese and his common-law spouse Donna Hixson, alleging fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty, primarily concerning misappropriated funds and mortgages on her property.

Ms. Hixson moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against her, denying wrongdoing and asserting no complicity in Sante's alleged fraudulent activities.

The court found no evidence that Ms. Hixson benefited from the mortgage or knowingly aided Sante's alleged misappropriations, and that any benefits she received were vastly outweighed by her mortgage and insurance payments.

The motion for summary judgment by Ms. Hixson was granted, and the action against her was dismissed.

On a Rule 21 motion, the court considered whether a child protection agency owes a duty of care to foster parents whose foster home was closed after abuse allegations against their biological child.

Applying the plain and obvious standard and the duty of care framework discussed in Syl Apps, the court held that no such duty is recognized in Canadian law.

The court rejected an attempt to distinguish biological parents from foster parents and found that imposing a duty to foster parents would conflict with the statutory mandate to treat the child’s interests as paramount.

The adult plaintiffs' claim in negligence against the agency was struck and the action dismissed as against that defendant.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal an order freezing settlement funds, directing an assessment of former counsel's fees, and imposing a charge securing those fees.

The court applied the settled extension-of-time factors and held that, although the delay was short and strict prejudice was absent, there was no adequate explanation for the delay and the proposed appeal had no merit.

The court found the proposed grounds foreclosed by authority or illusory, noted the failure to provide the underlying reasons under appeal, and considered the broader pattern of delay in dealing with former counsel's account.

The justice of the case required that the extension be denied.

In a personal injury action, the defendant brought a motion seeking production of approximately 1,100 photographs located on the private portion of the plaintiff’s Facebook account, arguing they were relevant to the plaintiff’s alleged loss of enjoyment of life and damages.

The court held that the stricter relevance test governs documentary discovery and rejected reliance on a mere “semblance of relevance.” After reviewing a sample of the photographs and considering evidence that none depicted significant physical activity inconsistent with the plaintiff’s claims, the court concluded the request was overly broad and amounted to a fishing expedition.

The photographs were not relevant to any issue in the action and production was refused.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The moving plaintiff sought leave to amend the statement of claim to add a new corporate plaintiff, additional defendants, and new allegations relating to the alleged non‑payment of professional fees for psychological services.

The responding defendants opposed the amendments on the basis that limitation periods under the Limitations Act, 2002 had expired and that some proposed amendments raised new causes of action.

The court held that where it is unclear whether a limitation period has expired, leave to amend should generally be granted subject to the responding parties retaining the right to raise a limitation defence.

Leave was granted to add certain parties, including a law firm as a defendant, and to make most amendments, while some proposed paragraphs were refused or required revision for failing to plead material facts.

The motion was therefore partially granted with conditions.