Matthew Peter Sammon

The applicant challenged the validity of his late father's will, arguing that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity when he executed a 'deathbed will' in the hospital following a severe stroke.

The court applied the relaxed test for capacity from Parker v. Felgate, finding that the deceased had full capacity when he gave instructions and reviewed the draft will prior to his stroke.

The court held that the propounders of the will met their burden of proving capacity and that the applicant failed to establish suspicious circumstances or incapacitating delusions.

The will was ordered to be probated.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario following an appeal from a Superior Court decision.

The appellant sought costs in the court below.

The respondent made no submissions on the costs issue.

The Court of Appeal fixed costs at $12,500, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes, payable to the appellant within 30 days.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order requiring the defendants to provide copies of the documents listed in Schedule A of their Affidavit of Documents.

The court noted that the moving party's counsel had prematurely demanded the documents immediately upon receiving the Affidavit of Documents, contrary to good practice.

The court dismissed the motion, observing that it appeared to be a tactic to gain more time to deliver a further affidavit, and extended the timeline for the delivery of that affidavit.

The Buyer (Mt.

Pleasant Roehampton Developments Limited) brought an application seeking a declaration that an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) was in full force and an order for specific performance.

The Vendor (Friedrich Christof Haussmann) brought a cross-application seeking a declaration that the APS was null and void and removal of a caution registered against title.

The central dispute concerned the interpretation of the "Investigation Period" deadline in the APS, with the Buyer arguing for March 31, 2017, and the Vendor for March 29, 2017.

The court found the plain wording of the APS established the deadline as March 29, 2017, and that the Buyer failed to waive conditions by that date, rendering the APS null and void.

The Buyer's alternative arguments of estoppel by convention and mutual mistake were rejected due to a lack of shared assumption or clear misrepresentation.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking a temporary 50-50 parenting regime for his three young daughters.

The applicant mother opposed, arguing the status quo was working and a parenting assessment did not constitute a material change.

The court dismissed the father's motion for 50-50 parenting, finding no compelling reason to alter the existing arrangement and that the assessor's observations did not amount to a material change of circumstances.

However, the court did address summer access, adopting a modified version of the mother's proposed schedule and implementing a brief modified 3-2-2 regime for the father starting in late August to allow him to demonstrate its viability before the scheduled trial.

The plaintiff sued the estate of a deceased priest and a Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for damages arising from sexual assault.

The corporation cross-claimed against the estate for contribution and indemnity.

The motion judge applied section 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002, finding the two-year limitation period ran from service of the plaintiff's claim on the corporation.

The estate appealed, arguing section 38(3) of the Trustee Act applied, with the limitation period running from the priest's death.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 38(3) of the Trustee Act applies to cross-claims and prevails over section 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002 by virtue of section 19(4) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The cross-claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the defendants for improper use of a power of attorney.

The court found that issue estoppel applied based on previous trial findings that a defendant had misused the power of attorney for personal gain without the plaintiff's permission.

The plaintiff was awarded compensatory damages plus prejudgment interest.

The claim for punitive damages was denied, as the amount fell within Small Claims Court jurisdiction and a defendant had modest financial resources and recently declared bankruptcy.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff, balancing the defendant's breach of trust with the plaintiff's choice to bring the action in Superior Court despite the monetary amount.

The applicant sought judicial review of a procedural ruling made by its Discipline Committee mid-hearing.

The Committee had ruled that the applicant must comply with the notice and consent requirements of s. 35 of the Mental Health Act before tendering psychiatric records as evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the ongoing administrative proceeding.

The plaintiff succeeded in a defamation action arising from a sustained anonymous internet campaign accusing him, an accountant, of tax fraud, theft, and dishonesty.

The court found the principal individual defendant admitted authoring the campaign with malice, and held the second individual defendant and the corporate defendant jointly and severally liable based on concerted action and authorized corporate involvement.

The court awarded substantial general, aggravated, and punitive damages, emphasizing the uniquely pervasive and harmful nature of online defamation and the defendants’ misuse of the campaign as leverage in parallel business litigation.

Claims relating to assault and destruction of property were dismissed for lack of proof on a balance of probabilities, and no separate finding was made on conspiracy because no additional damages would follow.

This medical malpractice action concerned whether Dr. Henry Fairley breached the standard of care by performing a hysterectomy on Francine Breton in 2010, five years after a previous subtotal hysterectomy by another doctor.

The plaintiff alleged the surgery was unnecessary and resulted in a bladder injury.

The court found that Dr. Fairley had a reasonable clinical basis to proceed with the surgery, based on the plaintiff's persistent symptoms, imaging reports suggesting residual uterine tissue, and the previous pathology report confirming adenomyosis.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, concluding that Dr. Fairley met the standard of care.

Following reasons for judgment in a family law application determining the valuation date for equalization and dismissing a spousal support claim, the successful party sought full indemnity costs.

The court applied the presumption under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules that the successful party is entitled to costs but considered the relevant factors under Rule 24(11).

Although counsel argued that full indemnity costs were appropriate due to discounted legal rates, the court relied on appellate authority cautioning against awarding full indemnity where the result would effectively replicate actual costs.

The court concluded that partial indemnity costs were appropriate and reduced the claimed amount by 30 percent.

Costs were awarded in the amount of $17,305 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of an interim suspension order imposed by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee following allegations of sexual abuse and subsequent breaches of a prior monitoring order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the procedural fairness complaints were premature and should be raised before the Discipline Committee.

The Court also rejected the applicant's statutory interpretation argument that the entire 58-member committee was required to issue the order, and concluded that the suspension was reasonable given the applicant's demonstrated inability to comply with the monitoring order.

The applicant sought an uncontested divorce and asserted that the parties separated in 1999, arguing that the respondent’s claims for equalization and spousal support were statute‑barred.

The respondent contended the parties only legally separated in 2014 and sought retroactive and ongoing spousal support, equalization of net family property, and confirmation that funds she withdrew using a power of attorney were a gift.

The court applied the indicia of separation and found that the spouses had lived separate and apart since November 1999 despite maintaining friendly contact and ongoing voluntary financial assistance.

Any equalization claim was therefore statute‑barred, and the voluntary support provided over many years exceeded what would have been payable under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court also found that the withdrawal of $22,000 using the power of attorney was not a gift.

The appellant employee deleted and took confidential information upon the breakdown of her employment.

The respondent employer sued and moved for an injunction.

The parties negotiated a settlement, but a dispute arose over whether the agreement included a full forensic sweep of the appellant's devices.

The respondent insisted on the sweep and adjourned its injunction motion, while the appellant claimed the respondent had repudiated the settlement.

The motion judge found a binding settlement without the forensic sweep term and held the respondent had not repudiated it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the respondent's insistence on the term and its steps to preserve the status quo via the injunction did not objectively evince an intention not to be bound by the settlement agreement.

This costs endorsement followed a contested motion in an estate administration dispute concerning access to trust fund accounting records and other relief.

The moving party succeeded on only one disclosure-related issue and failed on several others, while the responding estate trustee opposed broader relief.

Applying the Rule 57.01 costs factors and exercising broad discretion, the court declined to order personal costs against the respondent.

Instead, it ordered that each side recover $5,000 from the trust fund and otherwise bear its own costs.

The applicants sought a permanent injunction in a long-running neighbour dispute concerning interference with a right of way and lands acquired through prescriptive rights.

The court found that the applicants had acquired rights to the disputed portion formerly enclosed by a hedge, and that the responding neighbour had unlawfully removed the hedge and engaged in persistent harassing conduct.

A permanent injunction was granted restraining interference with the applicants' use and enjoyment of the disputed lands and further restraining harassment or annoyance.

The court also awarded substantial indemnity costs after finding self-help conduct, persistent denial of entitlement, and sanctionable behaviour that increased the applicants' legal costs.

The applicant sought to terminate a testamentary trust created by his grandfather, remove his uncle as estate trustee, compel a passing of accounts, and obtain a declaration of his right to use the estate's farm property.

The court found that the applicant held only a contingent interest in the trust fund and a vested future interest in the farm property, which did not grant him a present right to possession or use.

The court dismissed the requests to terminate the trust, remove the trustee, and compel a formal passing of accounts, but ordered the respondent to provide the applicant with copies of the existing accounting records.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for practising nursing while her certificate of registration was suspended and for making false statements on her annual renewal form.

The matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Order.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct, noting her persistent disregard for the regulatory process.

The Committee accepted the joint submission, ordering an oral reprimand and the immediate revocation of the Member's certificate of registration.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion under Rule 49.09(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking judgment enforcing a settlement allegedly reached through email exchanges with a former employee.

The dispute concerned whether the parties had agreed to a settlement and, if so, the scope of an IT consultant’s work to delete and certify the destruction of confidential electronic information taken by the employee prior to departure.

The court held that the parties had reached a binding settlement through their email correspondence, despite subsequent disagreement when counsel attempted to draft formal minutes of settlement.

Interpreting the emails objectively, the court concluded the parties had agreed to the employee’s proposed process for wiping devices, but using the employer’s chosen IT consultant at the employee’s cost.

The employer’s later insistence on a broader “full sweep” did not amount to repudiation of the settlement.

Judgment was granted enforcing the settlement on the terms determined by the court.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought professional misconduct allegations against a registered practical nurse for failing to complete a Specified Continuing Education or Remediation Program (SCERP) as ordered by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the member was aware of the order and failed to complete it, which constituted professional misconduct and dishonourable conduct.

The member's certificate of registration was suspended for four months, and she was ordered to complete the SCERP requirements and notify future employers of the decision.