Michael T. Doi

The court ruled on a threshold motion and costs following a jury trial in a motor vehicle accident case.

The defendant conceded liability, but after the jury awarded no damages, the defendant moved for a declaration that the plaintiff’s injuries did not meet the statutory threshold for health care expenses and non-pecuniary damages under the Insurance Act and regulations.

The court found that while the plaintiff suffered a permanent impairment, it was not serious or important enough to meet the threshold.

The defendant was awarded $150,000 in costs.

The court dismissed the defendant RNAO’s motion to strike or stay the plaintiff’s claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and for duplicity with a second pending action.

The court found that the plaintiff’s claim for breach of good faith in the administration of RNAO’s Legal Assistance Program was novel but arguable, and that the law in this area remains unsettled.

The court also declined to stay or dismiss the action as an abuse of process, finding that the existence of a second, similar action did not automatically warrant such relief and that the issues could be managed through case management or consolidation.

The applicant father sought a "chasing order" for declaratory relief that the child, F.K., is habitually resident in Brampton, Ontario, and for the child's return from Poland under the Children’s Law Reform Act and the Hague Convention.

The court found that F.K. was wrongfully retained in Poland by the mother and ordered the child's immediate return to Ontario.

The decision reviews the legal principles of habitual residence, wrongful retention, and the best interests of the child, and addresses the credibility of the parties' evidence.

The court dismissed Douglas LaFramboise’s action against Robert Kostyniuk as an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The claim arose from a prior action in which Kostyniuk, as counsel for Sylvia Zwaan, obtained judgment against LaFramboise for unlawful conversion.

The court found that LaFramboise’s new action was a collateral attack on prior decisions, was barred by absolute privilege, and that Kostyniuk owed no duty of care to LaFramboise.

The court emphasized the robust application of Rule 2.1 to prevent frivolous or vexatious litigation.

The self-represented plaintiff, Jennifer Scarangella, brought a motion seeking an order to act in a representative capacity on behalf of the estate of her late partner without a lawyer in a medical negligence action.

The defendants opposed, arguing that Rule 15.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires an estate to be represented by a lawyer and that Rule 2.03 should not be applied to dispense with this requirement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it was not an appropriate case to dispense with the requirement for legal representation, particularly because the issue was raised promptly by the defence and the plaintiff was seeking monetary damages for both herself and the estate, engaging the core rationale of Rule 15.01(1).

The plaintiff, Conquest Steel Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment to recover funds allegedly owed by the defendant, Polar Racking Inc., for custom-manufactured products.

The motion also sought leave to amend the title of proceedings to reflect the plaintiff's name change.

The court granted leave to amend the title and awarded judgment to the plaintiff for undisputed invoiced amounts and for uninvoiced products where the defendant had repudiated the contracts.

However, the plaintiff's claims for lost profit on a terminated purchase order and for storage fees were dismissed due to insufficient proof of damages and lack of contractual entitlement, respectively.

The Applicant mother sought various relief including child and spousal support, equalization, and property division following the breakdown of her marriage.

The Respondent father contended that their marriage certificate constituted a domestic contract under foreign law, invalidating these claims.

The court rejected the father's argument due to insufficient proof of foreign law.

The court granted the mother's claims for retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, an equalization payment, and ordered the division of RESP funds and proceeds from the sale of family properties.

The defendant was found guilty by a jury of sexually assaulting his former spouse.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as breach of trust and physical restraint, and mitigating factors including the defendant's first-time offender status, positive community support, and health issues.

The court imposed a 2.5-year custodial sentence, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a non-communication order, declining DNA and SOIRA orders due to low re-offense risk.

Colautti Landry Partners Professional Corporation (CLP) brought a motion to be removed as solicitors of record for the Plaintiffs, Correct Group Inc. and Correct Building Corporation, citing a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship and failure to pay for legal services.

The Plaintiffs opposed the motion and sought an adjournment, which was denied due to lack of medical evidence and ample prior notice.

The court granted CLP's motion, finding an irreparable breakdown in the relationship due to a significant billing dispute and the Plaintiffs' refusal to sign a new retainer agreement and pay funds.

The court determined that the Plaintiffs would not be seriously prejudiced by the removal at this stage of the proceedings and had sufficient time to retain new counsel, upholding the principles for solicitor withdrawal.

The defendants, a law firm and its lawyers, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a $20 million action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence brought by their former clients.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired with the opposing party in a prior wrongful dismissal action and negligently advised them, leading to an improvident settlement.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial.

It held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a conflict of interest or professional negligence, and that the settlement was not improvident given the risks of continued litigation.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to temporarily relocate with the children to St. Julian’s, Malta, and for ancillary orders for primary residence and sole decision-making.

The respondent father opposed the relocation, citing concerns about the children's cultural, linguistic, religious, and stability needs, as well as his limited ability to share parenting time post-relocation.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding it in the children's best interests to allow the temporary relocation, primary residence, and sole decision-making to the mother until trial.

The decision also established a graduated in-person parenting schedule for the father, with the mother responsible for travel costs, and liberal daily video contact.

This was a Rule 7.08 motion for court approval of a $5 million settlement for a minor, Ethan Ajayi, in a medical negligence action.

Unusually, the plaintiffs' counsel did not support the settlement terms but was instructed by the litigation guardian to seek approval.

The court approved the settlement and the associated legal fees, finding it to be in the minor's best interests given the inherent risks of litigation, particularly concerning causation and liability.

The decision also addressed the granting of a partial sealing order to protect solicitor-client privileged information, while declining the request for an in camera hearing, thereby balancing the principle of open courts with the need to preserve fair trial rights.

The Moving Defendants, Fulton Development Inc. and 2580867 Ontario Corp., brought a motion to strike all or portions of the Plaintiffs' statement of claim, which included derivative and oppression claims.

The claims arose from a failed real estate transaction, a $500,000 loan, and the alleged misappropriation and improper distribution of a $327,500 refunded deposit by certain directors.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the derivative and oppression claims viable and noting that the motion constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a prior order granting leave for the derivative action.

On consent, a crossclaim and counterclaim from a related 2019 action were consolidated with the current action, and the balance of the 2019 action was stayed.

This case involved a dispute over the interpretation and enforceability of two settlement agreements (2016 Joint Agreement and 2020 Final Minutes of Settlement) between separated spouses.

The court upheld the validity and binding nature of the 2020 agreement, which ratified and amended the 2016 agreement.

The judgment resolved outstanding issues including spousal support, child support arrears, equalization, property division (matrimonial home and investment property), and post-separation adjustments.

The court dismissed the father's attempt to set aside the agreement based on non-disclosure or unconscionability and clarified various financial obligations.

The plaintiffs, a realtor and his brokerage, sought to recover real estate commissions and leasehold improvement costs from the defendants related to the purchase of commercial units.

The defendants raised limitations and illegality as defences, arguing the realtor breached regulatory duties and that an "entire agreement" clause precluded the claims.

The court found the claims were not statute-barred, the entire agreement clause did not apply to exclude the agreed-upon costs and interest-free period, and the defence of illegality was not applicable despite some regulatory breaches by the realtor, as it would result in unjust enrichment for the buyers without prejudice.

The action was allowed in part, holding the individual defendant and two corporate defendants liable for the outstanding amounts with pre-judgment interest, while one corporate defendant was found not liable for a specific unit.