Mark Donald

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for damages arising from the defendant's failure to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant raised numerous defenses, including intoxication, misrepresentation, non est factum, undue influence, duress, and unconscionability, largely blaming the dual real estate agent.

The court found that none of the defenses raised a genuine issue for trial, noting the defendant's lack of credibility and failure to provide supporting evidence.

The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the motion was an inappropriate request for partial summary judgment due to an outstanding third-party claim against the real estate agent.

The court awarded the plaintiff $168,962.63 in damages and declined to stay the enforcement of the judgment.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding the election of the respondents' board of directors and officers at an annual general meeting.

The appellant argued that as the incumbent Vice-Chair, he was automatically entitled to become Chair, and that the election of the respondent Chair was irregular due to nomination and membership admission procedures.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge's holistic interpretation of the poorly drafted bylaws and historical governance practices was reasonable and free from palpable and overriding error.

The applicant law firm brought an application seeking a declaration that it had a valid and binding retainer agreement with the respondent, and an order assessing its legal fees.

The respondent alleged the retainer agreement produced by the applicant was a forgery and that the applicant settled matters without authorization.

The court found that a valid retainer agreement existed and that the respondent had provided clear instructions to accept a global settlement.

However, the court declined to assess the accounts itself, referring the matter back to an assessment officer.

Following the death of their mother, three brothers brought an action on behalf of her estate against their fourth brother, alleging he misappropriated significant estate assets including real estate, securities, and gold through joint accounts and transfers.

The defendant claimed the assets were inter vivos gifts.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the presumption of resulting trust and found the defendant failed to rebut it, noting the mother's lack of capacity due to dementia and significant inconsistencies in the defendant's evidence.

The court granted a tracing order, awarding the estate a 69.5% interest in a property purchased by the defendant with the misappropriated funds, plus monetary damages.

The defendant's counterclaims for improvident sale of the family home and return of TFSA funds were dismissed.

The plaintiff, a teacher, sued his employer school board and several co-workers for damages arising from alleged workplace discrimination and defamatory tweets.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under the collective agreement.

Applying the Weber test, the court found that the essential character of the dispute concerned the employer's obligation to provide a harassment-free workplace and the application of workplace policies, which were inferentially incorporated into the collective agreement.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a former member of a white supremacist group, sued the defendants, also former members or individuals involved in anti-hate work, alleging they appropriated her life story and committed various torts including injurious falsehood, civil conspiracy, and negligence.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims, and one defendant counterclaimed for defamation, invasion of privacy, and appropriation of personality.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims as frivolous and vexatious, finding no evidence to support any of the alleged torts.

The court granted the defendant's counterclaim, awarding $100,000 in general damages, $50,000 in aggravated damages, and $50,000 in punitive damages, along with a permanent injunction.

The defendants were successful in defending a defamation action brought by the plaintiffs regarding a scientific controversy.

The defendants sought costs of over $2.2 million, while the plaintiffs proposed approximately $236,000.

The court noted the defendants presented a comprehensive and formidable defence, whereas the plaintiffs' case was not robust and relied on a failed strategy.

Applying the principles for fixing costs, the court balanced the need to indemnify the successful, blameless defendants against the risk of deterring future litigants.

The court fixed the defendants' costs at $1,478,766.64, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiffs, a genetic testing company and its director, sued the defendants for defamation over a magazine article criticizing their non-invasive prenatal paternity test.

The article alleged the test was dangerous, unreliable, and prone to error.

The court found the article was defamatory but dismissed the action, holding that the defendants successfully established the defences of justification, qualified privilege, fair comment, and responsible communication.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to properly validate their test according to accepted scientific methodology, rendering the test unreliable and the article's claims substantially true.

In a defamation action concerning an article criticizing the plaintiffs' prenatal paternity test, the defendants brought a motion to amend their Statement of Defence after the close of evidence at trial.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the amendment introduced new allegations regarding the validity of the underlying science, which would cause non-compensable prejudice.

The court reviewed the existing pleadings and expert reports, concluding that the validity of the science was already a live issue and the amendment merely clarified existing allegations.

The court granted the motion to amend, finding no prejudice to the plaintiffs.