Mary A. Sanderson

Following a costs endorsement, the court issued a supplementary endorsement addressing pre-judgment interest and security for costs.

The court found no special circumstances to depart from the statutory pre-judgment interest rate of 4.5 percent.

Additionally, the court ordered the return of the $10,725 security for costs, plus any interest, to the plaintiffs.

Following a 31-day trial where the plaintiff was awarded $11 million in damages, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the plaintiff.

The parties agreed that partial indemnity was the appropriate scale.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed the plaintiff's partial indemnity fees at $675,000 plus HST and disbursements at $238,000 inclusive of HST.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that he had entered into a loan agreement with the respondent.

The trial judge accepted evidence that the appellant authorized an agent to borrow funds from the respondent to invest in a charitable tax shelter, with the agreement to repay the loan upon receiving a tax refund.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the case turned on credibility and the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in accepting the respondent's evidence over the appellant's.

In a trial of a cross-claim arising from a residential real estate sale, the cross-claimant alleged that the realtor and brokerage misrepresented future market conditions and induced a sale below value during the 2008-2009 financial downturn.

The court rejected the cross-claimant's credibility, accepted the realtor's evidence on key factual disputes, and held that statements about the future direction of the market were not actionable misrepresentations on the facts found.

The court further held that the alleged statements did not amount to contractual warranties and that the property sold at market value.

In any event, the claimed loss based on later appreciation was not proven.

An investor that had acquired the rights of a bankrupt Indigenous‑owned technology company sued a software corporation for breach of contract arising from a failed strategic partnership.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant committed to invest $1.5 million and provide technological support but later withdrew, causing the company’s collapse.

The court found a binding agreement was formed through oral approval and a confirming letter, and that the defendant’s internal corporate approval issues did not negate the contract.

Alleged misrepresentations regarding finances, market size, and potential investors were rejected.

Applying a modified valuation based on projected business plans and discounting for risk, the court awarded damages for the lost business opportunity.

The plaintiffs sought indemnity under an executive liability insurance policy for losses arising from litigation alleging wrongful acts connected to a corporate subsidiary.

The insurer argued that a specific entity exclusion and coordination-of-limits endorsement limited or eliminated coverage and that payments under a separate run‑off policy should be set off against the policy limits.

The court examined the surrounding negotiations and the wording of the policies, including the meaning of the term “claim,” and found the exclusion did not remove coverage for directors acting in their capacity as directors of the parent corporation.

The court also held that the coordination-of-limits endorsement was not triggered because the two policies covered different wrongful acts committed in different capacities.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiffs for the full policy limits.

Homeowners sued a property management company for breach of contract and negligence after tenants placed by the manager operated a methamphetamine lab that caused an explosion and rendered the property uninhabitable.

The court found the manager misrepresented that the management contract was identical to a sample contract, which altered a liability clause from negligence to gross negligence.

Applying principles from cases including Tilden Rent-A-Car v. Clendenning and Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., the court held the defendant was estopped from relying on the altered limitation clause.

The manager breached its contractual obligations and the standard of care by failing to conduct promised tenant screening, failing to disclose deficiencies in the screening process, and failing to pursue eviction when arrears and warning signs emerged.

These failures caused the plaintiffs’ loss.

The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action arising from a failed agreement of purchase and sale for contaminated industrial property and sought entitlement to retain a $50,000 deposit.

The purchaser had waived an environmental condition in the agreement after receiving information regarding contamination and a Ministry of the Environment prohibition order registered on title.

The court held that the purchaser knowingly accepted the environmental risks when it waived the condition and took an assignment of the agreement, and was not entitled to refuse closing on the basis that the order had not been removed from title.

The court concluded that no genuine issue requiring a trial existed under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and that the vendor was entitled to retain the deposit.

Summary judgment dismissing the action was granted.

An employer sought an interlocutory injunction enforcing a non‑competition covenant against a former executive who joined a competitor.

The employer alleged breach of a 2008 employment agreement and argued that, where a clear negative covenant is breached, the usual injunction test should not apply.

The court applied a modified RJR‑MacDonald test and held the employer failed to establish a strong prima facie case because the covenant may have been superseded by a later agreement and was arguably overly broad and unnecessary to protect legitimate interests.

The court also noted that the inevitable disclosure doctrine is not recognized in Canada and that evidence of irreparable harm was speculative.

The motion to enjoin the employee and the competitor was dismissed, although the employee was ordered not to disclose confidential information or solicit the employer’s customers.

Following a wrongful dismissal action in which the plaintiff claimed approximately $100,000 in damages, the defendant sought costs of roughly $99,163 on a full indemnity basis or $61,425 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and rejected the request for full indemnity costs.

The court emphasized proportionality between the amount in dispute and the costs reasonably contemplated in such an action.

Finding the hours and rates claimed excessive given that the primary compensatory claim was approximately $32,000, the court reduced the award substantially.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 inclusive of HST.

Following a trial involving competing defences, the court addressed costs where each side experienced partial success.

The defendants succeeded on a late‑amended secondary defence but failed on their primary defence alleging deliberate misrepresentation by the plaintiff.

Most pre‑trial costs related to the unsuccessful fraud allegation, while only a small portion of the trial addressed the successful defence.

Applying Rule 57.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considering the timing of the amendment and the nature of the allegations, the court ordered that the plaintiff recover costs incurred prior to the amendment while each party bear its own trial costs.

The father brought a motion for leave to appeal and to stay an ex parte interim order that granted the mother sole custody and restricted the father to one hour of supervised access per week.

The parties had previously shared custody equally.

The motions judge had made the order without fully reviewing the father's responding materials, concluding the father was mentally unbalanced based on select emails.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the order due to procedural unfairness and the drastic change to the status quo without a finding of material change.

The court also granted a stay pending appeal, reinstating the previous shared parenting schedule in the best interests of the children.

The plaintiff commenced a wrongful dismissal action alleging he had been terminated without cause and seeking damages in lieu of notice, aggravated damages, and punitive damages.

The employer asserted just cause based on cumulative misconduct, including insubordination, performance deficiencies, refusal to follow safety instructions, and conduct undermining workplace relationships.

The court applied the contextual approach to just cause from McKinley v. BC Tel and considered whether the cumulative incidents demonstrated misconduct incompatible with the employment relationship.

It found that the employer had issued numerous warnings and that the employee’s conduct, including refusal to comply with safety directives and actions damaging workplace relations, justified dismissal.

The court concluded that the employer had just cause to terminate and dismissed the action.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision granting the plaintiffs leave to pursue claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and certifying the action as a class proceeding.

The plaintiffs alleged the corporate defendant misrepresented its equity market risk by failing to disclose its decision to abandon hedging and reinsurance of guaranteed products.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusions that the plaintiffs had a reasonable possibility of success at trial and that the common law misrepresentation claims were suitable for certification alongside the statutory claims.

The plaintiff sought payment under a critical illness insurance policy after being diagnosed with thyroid cancer.

The insurer rescinded the policy alleging the insured failed to disclose sleep apnea during the application process.

The court held the insurer was not entitled to rescind the contract because the application questions were ambiguous and the insured reasonably did not understand sleep apnea to fall within the categories asked.

However, the insurer successfully relied on a contractual 90‑day exclusion clause because signs leading to the cancer diagnosis began before the 91st day after the policy came into effect.

As a result, coverage was excluded despite the insurer’s failed rescission argument.

The plaintiffs invested $50 million in a Russian oil and gas joint venture, relying on representations made by the defendants regarding the involvement of another major investor and the status of the corporate vehicles.

The plaintiffs later discovered that the corporate vehicles were sham public companies, the other investor had not funded its portion, and the defendants had engaged in stock manipulation and unauthorized issuance of free-trading shares.

The plaintiffs sued for deceit, breach of fiduciary duty, and unlawful conspiracy.

The defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract, inducing breach of contract, and malicious prosecution.

The Superior Court of Justice found several defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy, awarding substantial damages to the plaintiffs.

The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the property tax assessment of its rail yard.

The applicant argued the Board erred in law by failing to find a nearby rail yard was a comparable property.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding the Board correctly applied the 'all points of comparison' test and made no overriding or palpable factual error in concluding the two rail yards were not comparable due to significant differences in size, building area, and daily train traffic.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claim that a painting she purchased from the respondents, attributed to Norval Morrisseau, was a fake.

The trial judge found the painting was authentic based on expert handwriting analysis and fact witnesses, rejecting the appellant's evidence which included a statutory declaration by the artist.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and no reversible error of law regarding the admission of hearsay or opinion evidence under the Courts of Justice Act.

A short marriage ended in litigation concerning divorce, equalization of net family property, ownership of a condominium purchased before marriage, and claims relating to wedding gifts and a motor vehicle.

The court found that the condominium had been purchased entirely with funds provided by the applicant’s parents prior to the marriage and that alleged payments by the respondent’s parents in China were not proven to have been transferred to the parties or intended to affect property division in Ontario.

Given the brief period of cohabitation and the respondent’s minimal financial contribution, equalization under s. 5 of the Family Law Act would have been unconscionable.

The court therefore ordered an unequal division of net family property, confirming the applicant’s sole ownership of the condominium and jewelry while recognizing the vehicle as a gift to the respondent.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiffs’ statement of claim alleging harassment, injuries, and inadequate police response at a social housing complex.

The court held the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the landlord or the police board.

The landlord’s liability for third‑party conduct under the Residential Tenancies Act requires foreseeability and notice of repeated conduct, which had not been properly pleaded, and most alleged incidents were also statute‑barred.

Claims against the police board for failure to investigate or lay charges could not ground a civil cause of action due to police discretion in investigative and charging decisions.

The claim was dismissed as statute‑barred and legally insufficient.