Meredith J. Donohue

The defendants moved to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) that had been granted ex parte against two properties.

The defendants raised two grounds: (1) failure to make full and frank disclosure as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) that the court should exercise its discretion to discharge the CPL on the basis that the plaintiff had no reasonable claim to an interest in land and that damages was an adequate alternative remedy.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to disclose material facts including ongoing negotiations regarding the terms of the agreement of purchase and sale and draft agreements that differed from the initial term sheet.

The court also applied the Dhunna factors and found that the property was not unique, damages would be an adequate remedy, and there were other willing purchasers.

The CPL was discharged.

The Chief Building Official of the City of Cambridge issued an emergency order for the immediate demolition of the designated heritage Preston Springs Hotel due to its unsafe structural condition and persistent trespassing.

The CBO applied to the court to confirm the reasonableness of this order and to recover demolition costs from the owner, Haastown Holdings (Preston) Inc., who consented to both orders.

The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) intervened, challenging the reasonableness of the demolition order, arguing that the CBO failed to consider relevant factors (heritage status, appeal to CRB, alternative remediation options) and considered irrelevant factors (cost of remediation).

The court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the CBO's decision was well-informed by expert reports and his own inspections, and that the building posed an immediate danger that necessitated demolition.

The court confirmed the emergency order and the recoverability of demolition costs from the owner, dismissing the ACO's challenge and alternate relief requests as moot or unsupported.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay impaired driving and over 80 charges against the respondent.

The trial judge found a s. 8 Charter breach due to intrusive cell camera monitoring of the respondent using the toilet, despite prior judicial commentary on the issue.

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's finding of a s. 8 breach and the decision to exclude evidence and stay the charges, emphasizing the seriousness of the state misconduct and the lack of remedial action by the police detachment.

This decision addresses a motion by non-settling defendants (Watts Water Technologies) to expand a Pierringer Agreement order.

The non-settling defendants sought to include provisions allowing them to use discovery transcripts of settling defendants at trial, serve requests to admit, and compel testimony from settling defendant representatives.

The court denied these requests, finding them premature and matters best left to the trial judge's discretion.

The court emphasized that a model order for class actions should be tailored to specific circumstances and not automatically applied to non-class actions.

The applicant, Ronald Wojcicki, as estate trustee for Mary Thompson's estate, applied to pass his accounts.

The objectors, Mary's other children, raised several objections concerning Ronald's compensation for administering both Mary's and her deceased husband Terence's estates, his labour and mileage claims for cottage repairs, and the payment of legal fees from the estate.

The court reduced Ronald's compensation for Terence's estate by $10,000, finding that the in specie transfer of the cottage did not justify the full percentage-based compensation given the limited administration required.

However, the court largely upheld Ronald's other actions, including the reasonableness of his labour and mileage claims for cottage repairs and the decision to pay Terence's estate compensation from Mary's estate.

The issue of legal fees was deferred for review during costs submissions.

This costs endorsement followed a four-day trial where the defendant, 1882877 Ontario Inc., was found to be owed $22,366 after set-off against the plaintiff's (Ralph Mastracci c.o.b. as Bosco Roofing and Sheet Metal) claim.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $37,050.

The plaintiff argued for no costs, citing a mixed result and the final monetary award falling within the Small Claims Court jurisdiction.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, determined that despite the defendant's monetary success, the overall result was mixed and the actual payment modest.

The court ordered no costs payable, emphasizing that the parties should have pursued significant compromises or realistic settlement offers.

The plaintiff, Bosco Roofing, sued for payment for roofing work on a condominium building owned by 1882877 Ontario Inc. The defendant, 1882877 Ontario Inc., counterclaimed for damages due to poor workmanship and project delays.

The court found that Bosco's work constituted a fundamental breach of contract due to significant deficiencies, negating the need for 1882877 Ontario Inc. to provide an opportunity to correct.

While 1882877 Ontario Inc. destroyed evidence by applying a third membrane, the presumption of spoliation was rebutted by the urgency of the project and the expert report.

The delay claims by 1882877 Ontario Inc. were dismissed due to lack of evidence.

Ultimately, Bosco's claim was dismissed, and 1882877 Ontario Inc. was awarded $22,366 on its counterclaim, representing the additional cost incurred to achieve a proper roofing system.

This case involved a contract dispute between two dance studio owners regarding the sale of a business.

The defendant, a former student, agreed to purchase the plaintiff's studio space, chattels, and student body for $45,000, hire the plaintiff as a teacher, and allow the plaintiff's daughter to dance for free.

A dispute arose over HVAC repairs and the lease assignment, leading the plaintiff to break her lease to facilitate the defendant's occupancy.

The defendant subsequently repudiated the agreement, refused payment, and terminated the plaintiff's employment.

The court found the defendant breached the agreement, relying on principles of estoppel and substantial performance, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

The plaintiff was awarded $45,000 for the business, $21,760 for wrongful termination, and $4,455 for the daughter's dance lessons.

Charita Johnson was charged with importing cocaine into Canada after nearly three kilograms were found in her checked luggage upon returning from Jamaica.

A similar amount was found in her aunt Natalia Smith's luggage.

Johnson claimed she had no knowledge of the cocaine and was used as a drug mule by her aunt.

The court found Johnson's testimony not credible due to numerous inconsistencies and an "unbelievable story" regarding the trip arrangements, luggage contents, and the high value of the drugs without an exit plan.

The court concluded that Johnson had knowledge of the cocaine and found her guilty of importing cocaine.

The defendant, David D’Souza, was sentenced after being convicted of possession of heroin and possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

Police surveillance led to a search of his auto body shop, where 34.2 grams of heroin, dime baggies, a debt book, and cash were found.

The jury acquitted him of trafficking but convicted him of the possession charges.

The Crown sought a five-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed two years less two days.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the pernicious nature of heroin and the defendant's commercial motive.

Considering aggravating factors (commercial profit, mature age, not an addict) and mitigating factors (no prior criminal record, loving family, community involvement), the court imposed a four-year custodial sentence concurrently for both counts, along with a DNA order and a ten-year weapons prohibition.

This family law trial addressed issues of joint versus sole custody for the parties' four-year-old son, past daycare expenses, section 7 expenses, child support arrears, and international travel with the child.

The court granted joint custody, finding that despite past disagreements, the parents demonstrated sufficient cooperation and ability to prioritize the child's best interests.

The father was ordered to pay past daycare expenses and child support arrears.

The father's request to travel internationally with the child was denied due to potential arrest in India, but with leave to reapply.

This family law trial addressed issues of custody, access, imputed income, child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, equalization, travel orders, and insurance.

The court ordered joint custody with allocated decision-making, granting the father authority over education and sports during his access time, and the mother over health and religion.

Primary residence remained with the mother.

Access was significantly increased for the father, including mid-week and shared holiday time, and daily phone contact.

The court imputed higher income to the father for 2013-2014 for support purposes and ordered spousal support for the mother for ten years.

An equalization payment was ordered from the mother to the father, and travel restrictions were placed on both parents regarding taking the child outside Canada until age 14.

The applicant sought to vary a child support order under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002.

The court granted several consented orders, including adding the child to medical/dental coverage, contributing to extracurricular activities, and driver education.

However, the court denied the applicant's requests for an RESP contribution due to lack of jurisdiction and assistance with car insurance as it was not deemed an appropriate s.7 expense.

The respondent's request for disclosure regarding basketball trip expenses was granted.

This is an appeal from an arbitrator's decision concerning a resulting trust in a common-law relationship.

The applicant (original applicant, respondent on appeal) paid the deposit and all expenses for a jointly held home.

The arbitrator found a resulting trust in his favour, ordering the respondent (original respondent, appellant on appeal) to convey her interest.

The Superior Court found the arbitrator made a palpable and overriding error by misapprehending the relevance of the applicant's will at the time of purchase and misinterpreting the legal effect of joint tenancy as an inter vivos gift.

The court concluded that the applicant intended to gift the property to the respondent at the time of purchase, and the subsequent dissolution of their relationship did not negate this.

The court also rejected the applicant's unjust enrichment claim, as a gift provides a juristic reason for the enrichment.

The appeal was allowed, and the parties were ordered to obtain a joint appraisal, with the applicant having the option to buy out the respondent's half interest or the property being sold and proceeds divided.

The plaintiff sought a permanent right of way for a laneway encroachment, possessory title to a house and yard area by adverse possession, and a permanent right of way for a cedar pathway.

The defendants disputed these claims, arguing lack of continuous use, permission, and technicalities in pleadings.

The court found a mutual mistake regarding the boundary line, which negated the need for the plaintiff to prove intent to exclude the true owner for adverse possession.

The plaintiff succeeded on all three claims, establishing a prescriptive right for the laneway, possessory title for the house and yard, and a prescriptive right for the cedar trail.

The court ordered the preparation and registration of reference plans to detail the new property boundaries and rights of way, with costs of the reference to be shared equally due to the mutual mistake.

The court determined costs following a trial where the plaintiff, Indra Seeta Angel, was largely successful in her claim for $177,444.80 against Monica Beepat.

The court exercised its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff's request for substantial indemnity costs based on a Rule 49 offer was denied due to the absence of the offer's terms.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, reducing the plaintiff's claimed disbursements by $750 for staff overtime and fee costs by $7,700 for time spent arranging a trial date that had previously resulted in a costs order against the plaintiffs.

Ultimately, Monica Beepat was ordered to pay Indra Seeta Angel $92,968.95, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

This family law application proceeded to trial regarding equalization of net family property, a trust claim over the matrimonial home, and a restraining order.

The court upheld a 2007 separation agreement as valid and binding, which explicitly precluded further equalization upon reconciliation and subsequent separation.

The applicant's claim for a resulting, implied, or constructive trust over the Rutherford Road property against her former husband and mother-in-law was dismissed, as she had legally transferred her interest in 2007, and the former husband had subsequently transferred it to his mother in 2010.

The request for a restraining order was denied due to lack of evidence.

The court ordered the discharge of a certificate of pending litigation and that the applicant vacate the property.

The defendants successfully moved to set aside a noting in default and compel particulars.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the plaintiffs and their counsel personally due to the counsel's unprofessional conduct, including sharp practice, failure to communicate, and abuse of court process.

The decision highlights the importance of civility and adherence to professional conduct rules.

The Personal Insurance Company sought leave to appeal a motion judge's denial of summary judgment in a tort action.

The motion judge had found the summary judgment motion premature, requiring evidence of "other uninsured vehicles" and deferring coverage issues until trial.

The Superior Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision because the evidence sought was irrelevant to the issues and deferring coverage issues until trial was problematic.

The court also found the appeal involved matters of province-wide importance regarding uninsured coverage under the Insurance Act.

The applicant appealed a summary conviction for having care and control of a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit, contrary to s. 253 of the Criminal Code.

He argued that the trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice and that the evidence did not establish care and control or an intention to operate the vehicle.

The appeal court held that the trial judge made supported credibility findings and had an evidentiary basis to accept the police officer’s testimony that the accused was seated in the driver’s seat with the key in the ignition and the engine running.

Applying the realistic risk of danger test from R. v. Boudreault, the court found no error in the trial judge’s conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed.