Melanie Zetusian

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director under the Discriminatory Business Practices Act.

The Director had concluded that the Act was not engaged by agreements between the University of Windsor and student groups regarding protest encampments, which included a provision limiting institutional academic agreements with Israeli universities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Director's conclusion that the University was not 'engaging in business' under the Act to be reasonable.

The court also upheld the Director's alternative finding that the agreements did not mandate a refusal to employ or promote, as required by section 4(1)3(ii) of the Act.

A non-party jewelry business sought to enforce an alleged settlement agreement with a bank arising from a fraud claim.

The bank alleged that funds from a fraudulent transaction were deposited into the jewelry business's account.

The jewelry business claimed it had reached a binding settlement agreement to pay the outstanding balance in exchange for a comprehensive release.

The court found that while the parties were engaged in settlement negotiations, they did not reach agreement on all essential terms, particularly regarding payment security covenants and a "no claims over" provision that would have precluded the bank from pursuing its primary defendant.

The motion to enforce the settlement was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the bank.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a development permit conditionally approved by the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

The permit allowed the installation of a septic system for an agricultural-related building.

The appellant's sole reason for appeal was that the development was 'not good for environment.' At the hearing, the appellant indicated she only wanted to ask questions and did not seem to understand she had commenced an appeal.

The Hearing Officer found the appeal was without merit and dismissed it without a hearing pursuant to section 25(8.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, deeming the Commission's decision confirmed.

The defendant Westreich brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim against him, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The litigation involved a failed partnership for a land development project, with allegations that Westreich assisted other defendants in misappropriating the project.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff pleaded sufficient material facts to support claims of inducing breach of contract, knowing assistance, knowing receipt, and unlawful conduct conspiracy.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, reducing the requested amount to align with the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

The plaintiff in a complex family trust dispute brought motions on the eve of trial for further documentary production, further examinations for discovery, and leave to amend her Statement of Claim.

The motions sought to introduce new allegations that the defendants covered up and settled claims of sexual misconduct against the family patriarch, Frank Stronach.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no evidence that the requested documents existed, that the new allegations were irrelevant to the pleaded claims of corporate mismanagement, and that amending the pleadings three weeks before a scheduled seven-week trial would cause non-compensable prejudice and delay.

The defendant, Xiao Yao Zi, brought a motion under Rule 21 to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim in a libel action, arguing it failed to disclose a cause of action because the defamatory article, in its certified English translation, did not identify the plaintiff, Yeung & Associates.

The plaintiff contended that despite the literal translation, the Chinese characters and accompanying images (photos of premises, website screenshots, social media posts) clearly identified them.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it was not plain and obvious that the publication did not refer to the plaintiff, emphasizing that identification is a question of fact for trial and does not solely rely on literal translation.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to amend the pleadings to recast conspiracy allegations as malice within the libel claim and to clarify how the Chinese publication identified the plaintiff.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.