M.A. Sanderson

The court issued procedural directions in a dispute between the parties, granting the respondent leave to file a rebuttal affidavit.

The parties were directed to meet to discuss a potential consent sale of the home, participate in mediation, and a hearing date was scheduled for the application.

The court issued a consent timetable for a one-day summary trial, setting deadlines for the exchange of affidavits and the filing of a joint book of documents.

The plaintiff was unsuccessful on a motion.

The court determined that the plaintiff should pay at least partial indemnity costs of $14,000 plus HST.

However, a previous order required the plaintiff to obtain leave before bringing any further motions.

The court deferred finalizing the costs order, requesting clear evidence from counsel as to whether the plaintiff had advised the court of the leave requirement and obtained leave, noting that if leave was not obtained, substantial indemnity costs of $21,000 plus HST would be ordered.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a declaration that the defendants breached an undertaking given to the court regarding the removal of his stored goods, and sought damages of $180,963.

The court found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, including whether the undertaking bound the corporate defendant, the scope of the undertaking, and whether it was breached.

The court held that granting the requested relief summarily would be inappropriate, risk inconsistent findings, and fail to advance the litigation as a whole.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a long-term shift leader at a City of Toronto homeless shelter, was terminated for cause following allegations that he stole maintenance fees from vulnerable clients and issued fraudulent receipts.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the employer's investigation was deeply flawed, relied on false assumptions, and failed to prove theft or fraud on a balance of probabilities.

While the plaintiff erred in issuing two receipts to calm a client in crisis, this misconduct did not warrant dismissal.

The court awarded 18 months' reasonable notice, plus $65,000 in Wallace/Keays damages for the employer's unfair, insensitive, and bad faith conduct during the dismissal process, which caused the plaintiff mental distress and prolonged financial loss.

The plaintiff brought an undefended wrongful dismissal action after his employers' statement of defence was struck and they were noted in default.

The court accepted the pleaded facts and evidence that the plaintiff, a commissioned sales employee with approximately 7½ years of service, was terminated without cause and without adequate explanation.

Applying the Bardal factors, including the employee’s age, length of service, commissioned nature of the position, and limited alternative employment opportunities due in part to a medical condition, the court determined that 12 months’ reasonable notice was appropriate.

The court also found that the manner of dismissal—sudden termination at the employee’s home with vague insinuations of dishonesty—constituted unfair and unduly insensitive conduct causing mental distress.

Damages were awarded for reasonable notice and moral damages arising from the manner of dismissal.

The defendant insurer moved to dismiss or stay the plaintiff’s action for failure to pay several outstanding interlocutory costs awards and sought an order preventing the plaintiff from bringing further motions without leave.

The plaintiff, a self‑represented litigant, alleged the insurer wrongfully denied liability coverage following a motor vehicle accident and sought determination of coverage issues while facing related litigation.

The court weighed the policy objective of enforcing costs orders against fairness concerns arising from the ongoing liability dispute and the absence of a defence in the related action.

The court held that unpaid costs arising primarily from interlocutory appeals did not justify dismissing or staying the proceeding under Rule 57.03.

The motion was dismissed and the matter was permitted to proceed to trial to determine the insurance coverage dispute.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on ice near a commercial coffee shop.

During the jury trial, the court was asked to rule on whether the coffee shop was an occupier of its outdoor patio and the adjacent municipal sidewalk.

The court held that the patio was not a common element under the lease and that the coffee shop was its sole occupier.

Furthermore, by constructing a fence that funnelled customers across a specific portion of the municipal sidewalk and by actively clearing and salting that area, the coffee shop assumed sufficient control over the sidewalk to be considered an occupier under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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 wife sought interim spousal support, and the respondent husband moved to set aside an ex parte preservation order.

The parties were married in Iran, and the husband sponsored the wife to Canada.

The wife alleged the husband attempted to trap her in Iran to avoid paying a $540,000 Meher agreement and equalization.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the Meher and equalization, and that the wife would suffer irreparable harm if the husband divested his assets.

The preservation order was continued with a minor variation.

The court also imputed an income of $200,000 to the husband based on his lifestyle and family financial support, ordering him to pay interim spousal support yielding $3,250 net monthly.