Madeleine Dusseault

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a decision by a multi-site public hospital to relocate 10 inpatient beds from its Durham site to other sites due to nursing shortages.

The hospital brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the decision was not of a public character.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that the hospital is a private not-for-profit corporation and its internal operational decision to allocate resources was not an exercise of state authority subject to judicial review.

This was an endorsement on costs following a motion to strike brought by the moving parties under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although success on the underlying motion was divided, the court found that the respondent's late-in-the-day amendments and late service of materials prejudiced the moving parties and caused them to incur additional costs.

The court exercised its discretion to award costs on a partial indemnity scale to communicate that court processes and deadlines must be taken seriously.

Ultimately, the court ordered the respondent to pay $14,000.00 plus HST and disbursements to each of the two groups of moving parties.

The court considered a motion by several defendants to strike out claims in a civil action involving allegations of mortgage fraud, conspiracy, and related causes of action.

The moving defendants sought to strike the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and as being frivolous and vexatious.

The court granted the motion in part, striking claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence against the moving defendants without leave to amend, but allowed the claim against Mr. Geraci personally to be amended.

The court also addressed the admissibility of late-served motion materials and the requirements for amending pleadings in the face of a motion to strike.

The appellant landlord sought to expand a shopping centre to accommodate a new LCBO store, which required reconfiguring 36 parking spaces.

The respondent grocery store tenant successfully applied for a permanent injunction, with the application judge finding the tenant had a leasehold proprietary interest in the common parking area.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the application judge erred in law, as the tenant lacked exclusive possession of the parking area.

Assuming the tenant held an easement, the Court found no substantial interference with the tenant's rights, as the reconfiguration did not significantly reduce available spaces and the tenant had no contractual right to specific spots.

The appeal was allowed and the injunction set aside.

The applicant sought an urgent order for the partition and sale of a property held as tenants in common with the respondent, citing terminal illness.

The respondent opposed the sale, arguing it would cause him severe personal, emotional, and financial hardship amounting to oppression, and would prejudice his ongoing family law claims for resulting or constructive trust over the property.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for partition and sale, finding that the respondent had demonstrated sufficient hardship and that his trust claims were not frivolous and required a full trial.

The court also declined to grant declaratory relief regarding a second property, deeming the issue hypothetical and subject to alternative dispute resolution or the family law proceeding.

This was a summary judgment motion brought by Andrew Cole and Andrew Cole Corporation, defendants to a counterclaim, seeking to dismiss the counterclaim advanced by Demilec Inc. Demilec alleged that Mr. Cole, as Executive Director of the Canadian Urethane Foam Contractors Association Inc. (CUFCA), acted out of self-interest by developing a competitive product, improperly certifying a competitor's product, and sending misleading emails.

The court found that Demilec failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The allegations against Mr. Cole involved conduct undertaken in his capacity as a CUFCA employee, and no personal liability was established.

The motion was granted, and the counterclaim against Andrew Cole and Andrew Cole Corporation was dismissed.

The moving party sought an interim stay of a decision that ended an ex parte interlocutory injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with a mortgage, pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The underlying dispute involved a property development and a contest over the ownership of the moving party corporation.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the motion for leave to appeal was weak, there was no irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience did not favor extending the injunction.

The plaintiff, Ontario, brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to increase damages, provide further particulars of alleged kickback schemes, and add additional defendants in a civil fraud action.

The defendants and proposed added defendants opposed the motion, arguing the proposed amendments lacked particularity, used vague 'and/or' formulations, and failed to meet the minimum level of material fact disclosure.

The court agreed that several proposed paragraphs were deficient as they did not clearly identify which allegations were made against which specific defendants.

The motion was dismissed, but the plaintiff was granted leave to renew its motion with a properly drafted amended pleading.

Intact, an insurer, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action to recover $2.9 million in excess remediation payments for an environmental spill from other parties (pollutant owners/controllers and their insurer).

Intact sought recovery under s. 99(2)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act and the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Intact, as a voluntary payor beyond its policy obligations and without direct harm to its own property, did not qualify for compensation under s. 99(2)(a) of the EPA.

Furthermore, the unjust enrichment claim failed because the primary benefit of the payments accrued to Intact's own insured, and the payments were made voluntarily with knowledge of the respondents' position.

Ida Covello appealed a motion judge's order dismissing her motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by Flex Park Inc. arising from a mortgage.

Covello alleged the mortgage was fraudulent due to a law clerk's falsification of information in other transactions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision that the law clerk's activities did not affect the validity or enforceability of Covello's mortgage.

The court also rejected Covello's attempt to introduce fresh evidence and her reliance on the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act, neither of which were relevant or met the necessary legal tests.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment that ordered her to pay the respondent $200,000 under a promissory note and a related oral agreement for interest.

The funds were advanced by the respondent on the appellant's behalf for an investment in Metrozen, which subsequently misappropriated the funds.

The motion judge rejected the appellant's defenses, including lack of consideration, conditional repayment, and misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or law by the motion judge, and affirmed that the documentary record and the appellant's acknowledgments supported the judgment.

The plaintiffs moved for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants, who were former tenants of a farm property, from continuing an online harassment campaign against the landlord's principal.

The defendants had posted numerous YouTube videos containing threats, defamatory statements, and vulgar language aimed at coercing a settlement.

The court recognized the emerging tort of internet harassment and granted the injunction, finding that the defendants' conduct was intended to cause fear and anxiety and went beyond the bounds of decency.

The defendant 2613497 Ontario Inc. moved under Rule 37.14 to set aside a Mareva injunction and discharge Certificates of Pending Litigation, arguing the original order was obtained without notice and without full and fair disclosure.

The court found that the defendant's lawyers of record had participated in case conferences and filed responding materials for the original motion, establishing that the defendant had notice.

As the motion was not made without notice, Rule 37.14 did not apply, and the court dismissed the motion, awarding costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a $200,000 promissory note against the defendant.

The parties had jointly invested in a syndicated mortgage project that turned out to be a fraud, with the plaintiff advancing the defendant's share of the funds.

The defendant argued there was a failure of consideration and misrepresentation, but the court rejected these defences based on contemporaneous documentary evidence, including text messages and emails acknowledging the debt.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The applicants sought to rescind an Agreement of Purchase and Sale and recover their deposit due to undisclosed easements for storm and sanitary sewers.

The court found that the easements did not materially affect the use or enjoyment of the property, as per clause 10(d) of the agreement, and dismissed the application.