Luisa J. Ritacca

The defendants sought security for costs against non-resident plaintiffs in two related civil fraud actions involving failed investment schemes.

Following an appeal, the matter was remitted to reconsider whether the plaintiffs had a “good chance of success” on the merits, which could weigh against ordering security for costs.

The court reviewed extensive evidentiary allegations concerning the role of a law firm and its partner in facilitating investment transfers connected to the alleged fraud.

The court held that while the record raised genuine issues for trial, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a “good chance of success,” particularly regarding whether the defendants owed a duty of care to non-client investors or participated in the alleged fraud.

Security for costs was therefore ordered on the same terms previously imposed.

The appellant appealed an order requiring it to deliver a signed release.

The motion judge had held that releasing an individual partner's 'agents' also released his law firm from vicarious liability for his conduct.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that while a partner is an agent of the firm under the Partnership Act, the firm is not generally an agent of the individual partner.

The appeal was allowed in part to permit the appellant to plead that the law firm was vicariously liable for the partner's conduct.

The plaintiffs appealed an order of a case management master requiring them to post additional security for costs in complex civil litigation.

The plaintiffs were non-residents of Ontario and did not claim impecuniosity, but argued that the strength of their claims justified denying security for costs.

The court held that the master applied the wrong legal standard by requiring the plaintiffs to show an "overwhelming likelihood of success" rather than the correct standard of a "good chance of success" when assessing the merits under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Because this constituted an error of law, the appeal was allowed in part and the matter was remitted to the case management master for reconsideration using the proper standard.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings in their entirety and refusing leave to amend.

The pleadings alleged assault, breach of contract, malicious prosecution, unreasonable refusal of club membership, and defamation.

The Court of Appeal found that the new allegations were not raised before the motion judge and were inadequately pleaded, the membership refusal did not give rise to a cause of action, and the defamation claim lacked the required specificity.

The court upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision to refuse leave to amend due to the passage of time and failure to provide proposed amended pleadings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant race track sought judicial review of an Ontario Racing Commission (ORC) decision ordering it to allow the respondent owners' horses to enter races.

The race track had indefinitely banned the horses after another horse trained by the same trainer tested positive for a banned performance-enhancing drug, despite the owners' horses testing negative and the owners having unblemished records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the ORC's decision reasonable.

The ORC properly applied the burden of proof, considered relevant evidence, and correctly balanced the race track's private contractual rights against the public interest in fairness and the integrity of horse racing.

The applicant, a lawyer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission prohibiting him from appearing as counsel before it until he provided an unqualified apology for his conduct during a hearing.

The Divisional Court quashed the Commission's decision, finding that the Commission's hearing raised a reasonable apprehension of bias because the panel had pre-judged the matter and prepared its reasons in advance.

Furthermore, the Court held that the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively conducting a contempt hearing, a power reserved for the Divisional Court under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The matter was not remitted to the Commission, as the applicant's conduct had already been referred to the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Racing Commission decision that upheld Woodbine Entertainment Group's (WEG) indefinite suspension of his racing privileges.

The suspension followed the discovery of Erythropoetin (EPO) in three of the applicant's horses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably balanced WEG's private property and contractual rights with the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the horse racing industry.

The applicant sought judicial review of a penalty imposed by the Ontario Racing Commission for an EPO infraction.

The applicant argued that a Notice to the profession issued by the Commission constituted an error of law and that the penalty was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Notice was merely a declaration of intention to impose more severe penalties and that the Commission's penalty decision deserved deference.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant portfolio manager appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for mismanaging the respondent's investment account by retaining excessive short-term investments and purchasing a speculative stock.

The trial judge had dismissed the main part of the respondent's claim but allowed these two specific claims.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge's reasons were inadequate because he incorporated large portions of the parties' facta, and challenged the findings on negligence, ratification, mitigation, and damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while the trial judge's incorporation of facta was ill-advised, the reasons as a whole were sufficient for appellate review and the factual findings were supported by the evidence.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a Judges' Ruling that placed his horse sixth for interference and imposed a three-day driving suspension.

During a Gold Eliminations Race, the appellant's horse came out in the stretch run and made contact with a trailing horse.

The appellant admitted to the contact but argued the trailing driver could have avoided it.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that interference occurred and noting that the judges had already reduced the standard five-day suspension to three days due to poor driving conditions.

Standardbred licensee William Elliott appealed a decision by Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) to disallow his horses' entries into stakes races after he received a second TCO2 positive test.

He also appealed the judges' refusal to immediately transfer his horses to new owners.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the judges' normal process for investigating trainer transfers should not be circumvented.

The Commission further held that WEG appropriately exercised its discretion under its rules to refuse the entries, and the Commission would not interfere in what was essentially a private contract dispute absent an overriding public interest.

Standardbred licensee Sandy Jones appealed a suspension imposed after testing positive for THC Carboxylic Acid.

The positive test constituted a breach of the terms of his probation from a previous ruling.

The Ontario Racing Commission rejected the licensee's reliance on a private hair test to contradict the official urine analysis.

The Commission ordered a full suspension of his licence until August 22, 2007.

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee, requested a hearing regarding a Director's Order of Immediate Suspension.

On consent of the parties, the Ontario Racing Commission stayed the immediate suspension and granted the appellant his license subject to strict conditions, including no contact with Commission Stewards or certain witnesses, and restricted access to Woodbine Racetrack premises, pending a final hearing.

The appellant, a standardbred owner and trainer, appealed to the Ontario Racing Commission regarding a violation of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The parties presented a joint submission on penalty.

The Commission accepted the joint submission, imposing a four-month full suspension of the appellant's licences, followed by a one-year probation period requiring attendance at AA meetings and submission to random drug testing.

The appellant, a thoroughbred licensee and trainer, appealed the decision of the Ontario Racing Industry Board of Appeal upholding the Stewards' disqualification of his horse from second to fifth place due to interference during a race.

The appellant argued that another horse caused the interference by taking away running room.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's horse shied, causing the immediate interference, and that the other horse maintained a permissible path.

The Stewards' decision was upheld.

The defendants appealed a jury's damages award.

Both parties acknowledged that the damages awarded by the jury were so high as to justify appellate intervention.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted lower pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage awards for the respondents.

On consent, no order for costs was made.