Margaret Robbins

The decision concerns a dispute over the renewal of a commercial lease between McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited and North Elgin Centre Inc. McDonald’s sought to exercise its option to renew the lease for two additional 10-year terms, while North Elgin opposed the renewal, seeking to terminate the lease and redevelop the property.

The court reviewed the lease provisions, the requirements of the Planning Act, and the parties’ conduct, ultimately finding that the lease had been validly renewed for both the first and second renewal terms, subject to municipal consent.

The court dismissed North Elgin’s application to terminate the lease and granted McDonald’s a declaration of renewal, ordering North Elgin to refrain from further communications that would undermine the consent process.

The decision concerns a dispute over the renewal of a commercial lease between McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited and North Elgin Centre Inc. McDonald’s sought to exercise its option to renew the lease for two additional 10-year terms, while North Elgin opposed the renewal, seeking to terminate the lease and redevelop the property.

The court reviewed the lease provisions, the requirements of the Planning Act, and the parties’ conduct, ultimately finding that the lease had been validly renewed for both the first and second renewal terms, subject to municipal consent.

The court dismissed North Elgin’s application to terminate the lease and granted McDonald’s a declaration of renewal, ordering North Elgin to refrain from further communications that would undermine the consent process.

The court declared Glycobiosciences Inc. and Kevin Drizen vexatious litigants under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The decision reviews a lengthy history of litigation by Glyco and Drizen, noting repeated unsuccessful actions, disregard for adverse rulings, and failure to pay costs.

The court imposed restrictions on their ability to commence or continue proceedings in Ontario without leave, and stayed all ongoing matters.

The reasons also address the legal test for vexatious litigant status and the balancing of access to justice with the need to protect the court system from abuse.

This is a motion for approval of a class action settlement and class counsel's fees.

The class action alleged that Great Gulf Homes installed defective pressure-balanced valves in a condominium, leading to unpredictable temperature fluctuations and risk of harm.

The parties settled for $1.0 million.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering factors such as the likelihood of success, counsel's recommendation, and the absence of objections.

Class counsel's 30% contingency fee was also approved as reasonable, given the results achieved and the complexities of the case.

The plaintiffs, Bernard Finnigan and Ramon Suarez, brought a medical malpractice action against Dr. Edward Tat-Yee Lee, alleging failure to timely diagnose lymphoma and properly manage Mr. Finnigan's pain between November 2016 and January 2017.

The court found that Dr. Lee met the standard of care in his diagnosis, treatment, and pain management.

The decision emphasized that the doctor's clinical judgment was appropriately applied, that the "worst first" diagnostic principle is not the law in Ontario, and that the plaintiff's inconsistent reporting of symptoms contributed to the situation.

The action was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a contempt motion brought by McDonald's against North Elgin Centre Inc. (NEC), and NEC's cross-motion for declaratory relief.

Both the motion and cross-motion were dismissed.

NEC, as the successful party, sought substantial indemnity costs of $153,368.

McDonald's argued for $15,000.

The court found NEC substantially successful but awarded partial indemnity costs of $37,000, significantly reducing the amount claimed.

The reduction was based on the unreasonableness of NEC's claimed hours, the failure to delegate work to lower-cost timekeepers, and the fact that McDonald's prepared most of the voluminous record.

The court also found NEC's offer to settle did not comply with Rule 49 and thus did not attract substantial indemnity cost consequences.

The appellant, C.B., appealed two decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board: one confirming a Community Treatment Order (CTO) and its Community Treatment Plan (CTP), and another confirming his incapacity regarding treatment with antipsychotic medications.

The court upheld the Board's finding of incapacity for antipsychotic medication, applying the correct legal test and finding no palpable and overriding error.

The appeal regarding the CTO and CTP was dismissed as moot because the May 2021 CTO had expired, a new CTO was issued based on a fresh capacity assessment, and this new CTO was subsequently confirmed by the Board.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot issues, citing a change in the evidentiary basis of the dispute and judicial economy.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion to approve a class action settlement regarding unpaid overtime and holiday pay for television production workers misclassified as independent contractors.

The settlement provided for a $1 million payment if a proposed collective agreement was ratified, or $2.5 million if it was not.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, noting it avoided significant litigation risks regarding certification and individual damages proof.

The court also approved a 30% contingency fee for class counsel and a $7,500 honorarium for the representative plaintiff due to her exceptional involvement in collective bargaining.

The plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic hysterectomy performed by the defendant gynaecologist, during which her colon was perforated, requiring subsequent reconstructive surgery.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action alleging the defendant failed to obtain informed consent, failed to review prior operative reports, lacked the skill to perform the surgery given her anatomy, and negligently caused the perforation.

The court dismissed the action, finding the defendant met the standard of care in his pre-operative advice and surgical technique, and that the bowel injury was a known complication likely caused by abnormal anatomy rather than negligence.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision upholding a finding of incapacity and a Community Treatment Order (CTO).

By the time of the appeal, the CTO had expired and two subsequent CTOs had been issued, including one based on a new capacity assessment rather than the prior CTOs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that a decision would have no practical effect on the appellant's rights and no special circumstances warranted hearing the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his community treatment order and upholding the finding that he was incapable of consenting to antipsychotic medication and his community treatment plan.

The Superior Court found the appeal regarding the community treatment order was moot because it had expired and a new order was issued under different statutory criteria.

The court also held the Board made no palpable and overriding error in finding the appellant incapable of consenting to treatment, as there was sufficient evidence he could not appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his treatment decisions.

McDonald's sought to declare North Elgin Centre Inc. (NEC) in contempt of a prior court order requiring NEC to provide "all reasonable cooperation" to obtain Planning Act consent for a renewed lease.

NEC filed a report with the Town's Committee of Adjustment proposing conditions for consent approval, which McDonald's argued was a breach.

NEC also brought a cross-motion for declaratory relief and directions.

The court dismissed McDonald's contempt motion, finding that NEC's report, including its proposed conditions, reflected legitimate concerns as the property owner and did not constitute a failure to provide "all reasonable cooperation." NEC's cross-motion was also dismissed as unnecessary given the contempt motion's dismissal, and because a single judge could not vary a panel order.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment against Stewart Title Guaranty Company for $223,555.74, alleging coverage under their title insurance policy due to structural defects in their home that violated the Ontario Building Code and rendered the property unmarketable.

The court found that while the property's title was unmarketable under Covered Title Risk (CTR) clause 19, coverage was excluded by exclusion clause 7, which pertained to structures not built in accordance with applicable building codes.

The court also found no coverage under CTR clause 20, as there was no evidence of a governmental authority forcing remedial work.

Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against Stewart Title was dismissed.

McDonald's appealed a Superior Court decision that terminated a commercial ground lease due to McDonald's failure to comply with the renewal provision.

The application judge found that because the parties had not agreed on a rental rate at least nine months before the lease expiry, McDonald's was obliged to either refer the matter to arbitration or revoke its renewal notice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in concluding that North Elgin had properly revoked its waiver of strict compliance with the renewal provision.

The court held that the revocation lacked sufficient clarity and did not provide McDonald's with reasonable notice or an opportunity to cure the defect.

The parties settled an eight-year litigation regarding custom-built moulds.

Following the settlement, the defendants brought a motion for contempt alleging the plaintiff violated interlocutory orders by improperly storing two moulds outdoors, causing them to deteriorate.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the contempt motion.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding the underlying orders did not mandate any specific storage method and the contempt motion was a frivolous and vexatious attempt to re-litigate the settled action.

This endorsement addresses a procedural dispute regarding the order of upcoming motions.

The Defendants brought a motion for contempt and other relief, alleging the Plaintiff violated a prior court order.

The Plaintiff, in turn, brought a motion to strike the Defendants' contempt motion, arguing it could not succeed and seeking to avoid being compelled to testify or submit an affidavit in defense of the contempt allegations.

The court agreed with the Plaintiff, ruling that the motion to strike should be heard first, as its success could significantly reduce the need for the Defendants' broader motion and protect the Plaintiff's right not to testify in contempt proceedings.

This case involved two applications concerning the renewal of a twenty-year ground lease between a landlord, North Elgin Centre Inc., and its tenant, McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited.

McDonald's had given notice to renew but failed to either revoke its intention or elect arbitration within the stipulated nine-month period when rent negotiations stalled.

The landlord sought a declaration that the lease was terminated due to McDonald's non-compliance with the renewal provision.

McDonald's sought a declaration that the lease was renewed and an order for arbitration.

The court found that McDonald's did not strictly comply with the renewal provision.

While the landlord's conduct initially constituted a waiver of strict compliance, this waiver was effectively revoked by clear communication.

McDonald's subsequently failed to elect arbitration within a reasonable time and was not entitled to relief from forfeiture.

The court granted the landlord's application, declaring the lease terminated, and dismissed McDonald's application.

A 90-day stay of judgment was granted.