Lisa M. Fenech

The applicants, estate and disability trustees, sought the court's assistance in interpreting a will.

The will created a disability trust for the testator's daughter, with the remainder to be divided among three beneficiaries upon her death.

One beneficiary survived the testator but predeceased the daughter, and the will was silent on this scenario.

Applying the armchair rule, the court interpreted the will to mean the deceased beneficiary's share passed to his issue.

The court also permitted the application to proceed without a representative for the deceased beneficiary's insolvent estate and allowed the minor issue's share to be paid into court.

The plaintiff estate moved for summary judgment for $100,000 in damages against the defendant, who had previously been convicted of arson for starting a fire in the deceased's condominium while intoxicated.

The defendant did not respond to the motion.

The court found no serious issue requiring a trial, as the defendant admitted to carelessly starting the fire, which caused significant damage to the unit and common areas.

The court granted summary judgment for the requested $100,000, plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest.

The plaintiffs, victims of the Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh, brought a proposed class action in Ontario against Loblaws (who sourced garments from the factory) and Bureau Veritas (who conducted social audits).

The defendants moved to dismiss the action under Rule 21, arguing the claims were governed by Bangladesh law, were statute-barred, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that while it had jurisdiction simpliciter, the claims were governed by Bangladesh law under the lex loci delicti rule and were statute-barred by a one-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the court found that under both Bangladesh and Ontario law, it was plain and obvious that the defendants owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs, nor was Loblaws vicariously liable or in breach of any fiduciary duty.

The action and the certification motion were dismissed.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' multi-plaintiff action as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs, former involuntary patients at the Oak Ridge psychiatric facility, alleged they were subjected to abusive human experimentation and torture by the defendant doctors between 1966 and 1983.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiffs had a free-standing claim for breach of fiduciary duty that was not subsumed by the expired limitation periods for medical malpractice or tort claims.

The court granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty claim, leaving issues of harm and damages for trial.