Mathieu Bélanger

The plaintiff moved to extend the timetable for procedural steps in an action alleging historic sexual assault while in foster care.

The defendant Children's Aid Society cross-moved to dismiss the action for delay.

The court found that while the plaintiff's counsel initially caused delay by unilaterally cancelling discoveries, the defendant subsequently engaged in 'scorched earth' tactics that actively obstructed the litigation's progress.

Applying the Reid criteria, the court granted the extension, dismissed the cross-motion, and ordered the action into case management.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend his statement of claim to reduce damages to $35,000, dismiss a third-party claim, and transfer the action to the Small Claims Court.

The defendants opposed the transfer, arguing prejudice due to COVID-19 delays and costs already incurred in defending the Superior Court action.

The court granted the unopposed amendments and dismissal of the third-party claim.

The court also granted the transfer to Small Claims Court, finding no definitive prejudice from delay, but ordered the plaintiff to pay $500 to each defendant for costs thrown away on steps unnecessary in Small Claims Court.

The employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision to substitute a 30-day suspension for the dismissal of a flight attendant who had unlatched refreshment trolleys during a flight.

The employer argued the arbitrator's reasoning was illogical and failed to address safety concerns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable, justified, and transparent under the Vavilov standard, as the arbitrator reasonably concluded the misconduct was not as grave as the employer believed and lacked malice.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to amend their statement of defence to plead section 8 of the Interest Act.

The appellants argued they had a right to amend as a matter of law because the respondents had amended their claim, and that statutory defences do not need to be pleaded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that affirmative and statutory defences must be pleaded to avoid trial by ambush.

The Court also upheld the Master's finding that the appellants' unexplained four-year delay in raising the defence resulted in presumed and actual non-compensable prejudice to the respondents, who lost opportunities to strategize and settle.

The appellants sued their former lawyers for solicitor's negligence following a finding of securities fraud by the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC).

The motion judge dismissed the majority of the claims as an abusive collateral attack on the OSC decision, relying on the doctrine of issue estoppel, but ordered a mini-trial under Rule 20.04(2.2) for the remaining claim regarding negligent settlement advice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that civil claims depending on showing a conviction would not have occurred but for a lawyer's conduct constitute an improper collateral attack.

The Court also held there is no basis to appeal an order directing a mini-trial as part of a summary judgment process.

The court issued an endorsement following a case conference regarding whether an examination for discovery should proceed remotely by videoconference or in person during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiffs objected to a remote examination, citing concerns about assisting counsel, assessing witness demeanor, lack of solemnity, and potential for abuse.

The court, applying Rule 1.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, ordered the examination to proceed by videoconference, emphasizing the imperative of technological competency and the need to avoid litigation delays, finding that the benefits of proceeding remotely outweighed the perceived risks.

The applicant tennis association sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding it discriminated against women by offering twice as many playing spots to men in its mixed league.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review for HRTO decisions remains reasonableness post-Vavilov.

The Court found the HRTO reasonably concluded the respondents had standing, the applications were timely, and the applicant failed to establish undue hardship in implementing a gender-equal format.

The appellant property manager appealed the dismissal of its summary judgment motion, arguing that the respondent condominium corporation's action for construction defects was a nullity because it failed to provide owners with notice under s. 23(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 before issuing a notice of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, taking the rare step of overruling its own previous decision in Medhurst.

The Court held that applying the modern approach to statutory interpretation, non-compliance with the notice provision does not render an action a nullity, as doing so would undermine the consumer protection purpose of the Act and cause injustice to the condominium owners the provision was designed to protect.

The moving party sought an extension of time to serve and file a notice of appeal from an order dismissing a motion to set aside a default judgment.

The notice of appeal was served one day late due to inadvertence of counsel.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing prejudice, the moving party's pattern of breaches of court orders, and lack of merit of the proposed appeal.

The court granted the extension, finding that the one-day delay was minimal and explained, that no real prejudice resulted from the delay itself, that the moving party's prior defaults had been addressed through costs orders, and that the proposed appeal was not so devoid of merit as to warrant denial of the right to appeal.

An appeal concerning the failure to disclose immediately litigation agreements between a plaintiff (subrogated insurer) and a defendant that converted their adversarial relationship into a cooperative one.

The plaintiff and defendant entered into two agreements (2011 and 2016) whereby the defendant would defend the action and prosecute a third-party claim funded by the plaintiff, and subsequently the plaintiff assigned all its rights in the action to itself.

These agreements were not disclosed immediately but rather piecemeal throughout 2016.

The motion judge found the agreements should have been disclosed but refused to stay the action, finding no prejudice.

The appellate court reversed, holding that failure to immediately disclose agreements that change the litigation landscape constitutes abuse of process requiring a stay of the non-disclosing party's claim as a matter of principle.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal from an Ontario Securities Commission decision finding them guilty of securities fraud, the Commission and the intervenors sought costs.

The Commission sought $40,000, which the court awarded in full on a partial indemnity basis.

The intervenors, who were the appellants' former counsel and intervened to defend against allegations of ineffective assistance, sought over $53,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court held that the intervenors were entitled to costs as parties to the appeal, but reduced the scale to partial indemnity and fixed their costs at $20,000.