Matthew R. Todd

The plaintiffs sought leave under Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to bring a summary judgment motion, despite the action having already been set down for trial.

The proposed motion would only address claims against two of the defendants for breaches of share purchase and consulting agreements.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the proposed summary judgment motion would not eliminate any parties, would not shorten the trial given the interconnected factual matrix, and would risk inconsistent verdicts and prejudice regarding the defendants' counterclaim.

The appellant appealed a decision awarding damages to the respondents for breach of a lease agreement and improper sale of a vehicle under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

The application judge had found the notice of sale deficient, improperly served, and waived, and that the sale was not commercially reasonable.

The Court of Appeal found the application judge misapprehended the evidence and erred in law.

The notice complied with the Act, was properly served by registered mail, and was not waived by an incomplete compromise agreement.

Furthermore, the appellant had no obligation to repair the vehicle before sale, and the sale price was commercially reasonable.

The appeal was allowed and the application dismissed.

The appellant municipality appealed an application judge's interpretation of a development agreement regarding the costs of operating a pumping station.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's conclusion that the costs of operation, as distinct from maintenance and repair, are to be borne by the municipality and not the developer.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant university brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's representative action, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and the dispute should be resolved by a labour arbitrator.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to share savings from the Employment Insurance Premium Reduction Program with employees.

The court applied the Weber test and found that the essential character of the dispute did not arise from the collective agreement, but rather from the defendant's alleged failure to comply with the Employment Insurance Act.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to add the Attorney General of Canada as a party defendant to an action against the University of Windsor regarding employment insurance premium reductions.

The appellant sought to assert claims of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and negligence against the proposed defendant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant had not pleaded a tenable cause of action.

The applicants brought an application under the Repair and Storage Liens Act arising from a commercial dump truck lease and the repairer's subsequent sale of the vehicle.

The court found that the respondent lessee was in arrears and had breached the lease, and that the respondent repairer sold the truck without providing proper notice to the applicants.

The court also held that, by entering into a further agreement after mailing notices, the repairer waived reliance on the earlier notice.

The sale was found not to be commercially reasonable and contrary to the Act.

The moving defendant sought a declaration that a subcontractor’s construction lien was invalid for failure to preserve the lien in accordance with s. 34(2) of the Construction Lien Act after the claim for lien was delivered to a municipality’s deputy clerk rather than directly to the clerk.

The court held that the lien was properly preserved because the deputy clerk received the document within the statutory period and delivered it to the municipal clerk the same day.

The court further found that s. 228(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001 grants deputy clerks the powers and duties of the clerk, including receipt of lien claims.

A literal interpretation requiring service only on the clerk would create an impractical and absurd result where service would be impossible if the clerk were unavailable.

The motion seeking to invalidate the lien and return the security bond was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and reprisal in employment.

Most allegations were previously dismissed for timeliness, leaving four incidents.

Three of these incidents were subsequently addressed and dismissed by the Tribunal in a related application involving a different applicant.

The respondent argued that proceeding with these three allegations would constitute re-litigation.

The Tribunal agreed, dismissing the three overlapping allegations and directing that the application proceed only with respect to the single remaining incident.

The applicant, who has severe rheumatoid arthritis, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination because the respondents (the landlord and the physiotherapy clinic) refused to install an automatic door.

The Tribunal found that the inaccessible door created a barrier and restricted the applicant's access to services and facilities.

Both respondents failed to accommodate the applicant's disability-related needs, instead pointing to each other as responsible.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to jointly pay $6,000 in general damages, install an automatic door, and ordered the landlord to undergo human rights training.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitral award that dismissed a professor for just cause.

The underlying dismissal occurred in 2001, and the arbitral award was issued in 2002.

Due to various procedural steps, adjournments, and a late intervention by the dismissed professor raising jurisdictional arguments, the application did not proceed to a hearing until 2014.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for extreme delay, finding that relitigating a workplace dispute over a decade later would cause prejudice and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The respondents purchased property formerly used as a municipal dump and sued the appellant municipality for negligence after discovering contamination.

The trial judge awarded damages for additional construction costs and stigma.

The Court of Appeal allowed the municipality's appeal, finding that the causal link was broken when the respondents rejected an offer to reverse the sale and chose to proceed with construction despite knowing the site was contaminated and would require significant remediation.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the corporate plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

The court also addressed a request by the defendant for leave under Rule 39.02(2) to file a late affidavit after cross‑examinations, which was refused because the evidence should have been delivered earlier and did not justify departure from the rule’s purpose of ensuring parties know the case to meet before cross‑examination.

On the security for costs issue, the court found there was good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets, given substantial debts and writs of execution.

However, the plaintiff failed to establish impecuniosity due to insufficient evidence regarding the finances of the shareholder and the principal beneficiary of the action.

Although the claim was found to have a good chance of success, balancing the interests of the parties justified ordering staged security for costs.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination, harassment, and reprisal by his employer over several years.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application, arguing that most allegations were out of time or governed by the collective agreement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish good faith for the delay in filing the older allegations.

However, the Tribunal permitted four recent allegations of racist comments to proceed, finding they constituted a series of incidents within the statutory time limit.

The matter was adjourned pending the outcome of a related application by a co-worker.

The applicant alleged a poisoned work environment based on race, colour, and ethnic origin.

The respondent employer requested orders to dismiss allegations regarding two incidents for delay and to exclude proposed similar fact evidence from two witnesses.

The Tribunal struck the first incident as it occurred more than one year prior to the application and did not form part of a series, but allowed the second incident.

The Tribunal also excluded the proposed similar fact evidence, finding its prejudicial effect exceeded its probative value given the temporal disconnect from the main allegations.

The testator bequeathed his shares in a family business to his sister.

A brother challenged the bequest, arguing it violated a shareholders' agreement restricting share transfers.

The trial judge found the bequest null and void.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that contractual obligations do not constrain a person's ability to bequeath property by will.

Under section 67(2) of the Business Corporations Act, the estate trustees are entitled to be treated as registered security holders.

While the estate trustees are bound by the shareholders' agreement and cannot immediately distribute the shares without compliance, this does not render the bequest void.

The appeal was allowed.

The respondent and a second mortgagee advanced funds to a mortgagor, but their mortgages were registered in the wrong order due to a solicitor's error.

The appellant, a third mortgagee, learned of the error and subsequently purchased an assignment of the mistakenly first-registered mortgage at a discount, claiming priority over the respondent.

The application judge found the appellant had actual notice of the true priority before acquiring the assignment, defeating its claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it owed the respondent $22,987.50 based on unpaid invoices.

The appellant conceded the amount was owed and did not appeal the dismissal of its counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal held that while there was uncontradicted evidence a certified cheque was tendered, this did not undermine the conclusion that the full amount was owing based on the invoices.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding a contract dispute over manufacturing work.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's findings of fact were inconsistent with his legal conclusions.

Specifically, the trial judge found that the respondent failed to complete work in a timely manner, which constituted a breach of contract, entitling the appellant to damages subject to mitigation.

The Court of Appeal varied the trial judgment to award the appellant damages for the cost of new tools and laser cut parts, while upholding the award to the respondent for compression costs.