Marvin Kurz

The plaintiff sought leave to amend her statement of claim to include a declaration of catastrophic impairment and claims for punitive, aggravated, and exemplary damages, and to compel the defendant to produce redacted adjuster's log notes with explanations.

The defendant opposed the amendments, arguing they were new claims barred by the April 1, 2016 amendment to the Insurance Act, which directs statutory accident benefit disputes to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT).

The court dismissed the request to amend the statement of claim, finding the proposed amendments constituted new claims not implicit in the original pleading.

However, the court granted the request for the production of redacted adjuster's log notes, along with explanations for each redaction, as the defendant had previously undertaken to produce them.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the applicant father's parenting time be supervised, alleging he failed to comply with random drug testing requirements under their Minutes of Settlement.

The father had only taken two tests, one of which showed trace amounts of cocaine, which his addiction physician argued could be from environmental exposure.

The court declined to order supervised parenting time, finding no evidence of actual problems with the father's care of the child, but incorporated the Minutes into a temporary order with stricter weekly drug testing requirements.

The applicant (Purchaser) sought the return of a $200,000 deposit paid for the purchase of a Volkswagen dealership's assets, arguing the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) was terminated due to the failure to obtain necessary approvals from the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (OMVIC) and Volkswagen Group Canada (VW Canada).

The respondent (Vendor) refused, asserting the Purchaser breached its contractual obligations to use "reasonable commercial efforts" and act "on a timely basis" to secure these approvals.

The court found that the Purchaser indeed breached the APA by delaying its OMVIC application, failing to provide required documentation, and intentionally not signing and returning VW Canada's Letter of Intent by the stipulated deadline.

Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the deposit was forfeited to the Vendor.

The Bank of Montreal (BMO) brought a motion for judgment against Volodymyr Garasymovych for credit card and personal line of credit debts, following his default.

BMO also sought a declaration that these debts arose from fraudulent misrepresentations and would therefore survive bankruptcy under section 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court granted BMO the monetary judgment for the outstanding debts, finding the facts deemed admitted by default sufficient for this claim.

However, the court dismissed BMO's claim for a declaration of fraud, ruling that BMO failed to provide clear and conclusive evidence to prove the elements of civil fraud.

The evidence presented, primarily BMO's proprietary software screenshots, was deemed inadmissible as business records due to lack of proper proof and also suffered from issues related to the best evidence rule and ambiguity.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment on an unpaid mortgage.

The defendant sold the property and paid the discharge amount under protest, disputing several administrative and legal fees.

The court applied section 8(1) of the Interest Act and disallowed most of the disputed fees, finding they lacked evidentiary support or constituted prohibited penalties, allowing only a discharge statement fee.

The issue of the plaintiff's allegedly undercharged legal fees was adjourned for further negotiation or submissions.

The parties, a high-income banker and a part-time physician, engaged in a high-conflict family law trial primarily concerning parenting time with their two teenage daughters, spousal support, and the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The mother alleged family violence and coercive control, while the father alleged parental alienation.

The court found neither extreme applied but noted the mother's diffidence in supporting the father's relationship with the children.

Respecting the children's ages and wishes, the court ordered daytime parenting time for the younger child but did not force the older child to participate.

The court imputed a full-time income of $550,000 to the mother but ordered the father to pay $20,000 per month in spousal support for 12.5 years, alongside $24,661 in monthly child support.

The mother's request for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home was dismissed, and partition and sale were ordered.

The appellants appealed a class proceedings judge's refusal to approve $70,000 in honorariums for two representative plaintiffs and three class members from a $10 million class action settlement fund regarding institutional sexual abuse.

The Divisional Court reviewed the jurisprudence on representative plaintiff compensation, confirming that such payments should be rare, modest, and reserved for exceptional circumstances to avoid conflicts of interest.

The court granted the appeal in part, awarding $7,500 to the lead representative plaintiff for her exceptional contribution and exposure to re-traumatization, but dismissed the requests for the co-representative plaintiff and the other class members.

The Plaintiff, Haventree Bank, brought a second ex parte motion for a writ of possession, having previously had a similar motion dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The Bank failed to disclose the prior dismissal and presented contradictory evidence regarding an occupancy check.

The court emphasized the common law and Rule 39.01(6) duty of full and fair disclosure in without-notice motions, stating that failure to disclose material facts, including prior judicial findings, is unacceptable.

Due to the lack of candour and material discrepancies in the evidence, the motion was not granted but adjourned to be heard in person, on notice to the Defendant.

The Father brought an urgent motion to add his girlfriend, L.H., to the list of approved parenting supervisors, as his parenting time was supervised due to concerns about alcohol abuse.

The Mother opposed, arguing that the girlfriend's new relationship with the Father could compromise her objectivity as a supervisor, especially given the Father's denial of his alcohol issues and his lack of candour regarding the relationship.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Mother's refusal to be reasonable and in the children's best interests.

The judge noted the Father's manipulative conduct, his failure to utilize other already-approved supervisors, and his misrepresentation of L.H.'s role.

This was a trial of the Respondent Mother’s cross-application concerning child support, s. 7 expenses, retroactive support, life insurance, equalization, and RESPs.

The court imputed income to the Father due to intentional underemployment and non-disclosure, ordering him to pay ongoing, arrears, and retroactive child support.

The Mother's claims for an adult child's crane operating course and her life insurance policy were dismissed.

Her equalization claim was stayed due to bankruptcy.

The Father was ordered to designate the Mother as an irrevocable beneficiary of a life insurance policy for the children's support, and orders were made regarding the children's RESPs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to "renew" an expired writ of seizure and sale, which the court clarified was properly a motion for the issuance of a fresh writ more than six years after the underlying judgment.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice due to significant concerns regarding the quality of the evidence provided, which largely consisted of inadmissible hearsay from individuals without personal knowledge, and issues with proper service on the defendant at a current address.

The court emphasized the necessity for counsel to adhere to proper evidentiary standards in written motions, even when unopposed.

The moving parties sought to dismiss the plaintiff's action under Rule 21.01(3)(b) for lack of legal capacity, arguing the claims were essentially for trademark infringement but failed to plead the Trademarks Act.

The court dismissed this ground, finding the plaintiff's claims were properly grounded in common law breach of contract, passing-off, and unjust enrichment.

The moving parties also argued the action was an abuse of process due to a related proceeding in Toronto.

The court deferred the abuse of process issue, strongly recommending the action be transferred to Toronto and joined with the related proceeding.

The plaintiff, Haventree Bank, brought a motion for a writ of possession following a judgment for possession.

The motion was dismissed because the supporting affidavit from a law clerk relied on inadmissible double or triple hearsay from an unsigned occupancy report, failing to meet the evidentiary requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 4.06(2) and Rule 39.01(4).

The court emphasized that even unopposed affidavit evidence must be persuasive and adhere to proper evidentiary rules, particularly when seeking an order that would evict a person from their home.

The appellant, an unqualified teacher who taught part-time credit courses between 1980 and 1989, sought retroactive pension credits from the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed his application, finding he required a Letter of Permission (LOP) for each year of service to be eligible for credits, and that he failed to prove he had been granted any LOPs.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the LOP requirement, the burden of proof, and the pension board's fiduciary duties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly applied the statutory requirements, properly placed the onus of proof on the appellant, and made no palpable and overriding error in its factual findings regarding the absence of LOPs and the board's conduct.

The plaintiff moved to amend his statement of claim to add the Regional Municipality of Peel as a defendant in a slip and fall action, more than two years after the accident.

The plaintiff argued the claim against Peel was not discoverable earlier because Peel's representative had erroneously advised that the City of Mississauga was responsible for the sidewalk.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff met the test for adding a party after the apparent expiry of a limitation period, as the plaintiff rebutted the presumption of discovery and offered a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The court found no non-compensable prejudice to Peel, given it had actual notice of the claim within a month of the accident.

The applicant brought an application to have his sister, the respondent, declared a vexatious litigant under s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court reviewed a decade-long history of litigation initiated by the respondent against the applicant, their sister, and various lawyers, which included defamation, cyberstalking, and frivolous claims.

The court found that the respondent persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings and conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner.

The application was granted, the respondent was prohibited from instituting further proceedings without leave, and her active Small Claims Court action was dismissed.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and ordering eviction.

The Board found that the tenant substantially interfered with the landlord's reasonable enjoyment by repeatedly refusing entry to real estate agents, engaging in abusive behaviour, and sending threatening emails.

The tenant argued the Board erred by basing the eviction solely on his refusal to allow photographs of the unit and alleged bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the tenant could not raise new issues not presented to the Board, the eviction was based on a broader pattern of conduct, and there was no evidence of bias.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board settlement order and a subsequent review order, arguing procedural unfairness because a term allowing eviction without notice under s. 78 of the Residential Tenancies Act was included without their consent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that the time period for the s. 78 term had expired without the landlord relying on it.

The Court also noted that even if the appeal were not moot, it would be dismissed because the Board has statutory discretion to include fair conditions in its orders, and the tenant raised no error of law.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding the calculation of Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) for a self-employed lawyer injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT adjudicator erred in law by applying section 4(2)3 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which applies to employed persons, rather than section 4(3), which applies to self-employed persons.

The appeal was granted, the LAT decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding an inspector's refusal to order the respondent employer to restrict the operation of an overhead crane to workers holding a specific mobile crane certificate.

By the time of the hearing, the construction project had concluded, rendering the underlying dispute moot.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot application, finding no special circumstances.

In the alternative, the Court held that the Board's interpretation of the occupational health and safety regulations was reasonable.

The application was dismissed with costs.