Michael Doyle

The applicant sought an order directing the release of funds held in trust following the settlement of two professional negligence actions against KPMG.

The parties disputed the interpretation of an Assignment Agreement and a Mutual Release regarding the distribution of the settlement funds and the return of monies paid into court as security for costs.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation, finding that the Release did not bar the application, the respondent was not entitled to reimbursement of litigation expenses in the absence of a costs award, and the security for costs funds were not 'net amounts recovered' from the litigation.

The court ordered the funds distributed according to its interpretation of the agreements, apportioning the remaining settlement funds equally between the two actions.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The parties were co-workers and unionized teachers subject to a collective agreement.

The plaintiff had sued the defendant for defamation, intentional interference with economic relations, and intentional infliction of mental distress arising from workplace harassment complaints.

The court applied the exclusive jurisdiction model from Weber, finding that the essential character of the dispute was workplace-related and arose from the interpretation, application, administration, or violation of the collective agreement.

The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction, as the dispute must be resolved through the grievance arbitration process.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The applicant tenant brought an application seeking to have the court determine the market rate for a lease renewal and extend the contract, alleging the respondent landlord failed to negotiate in good faith.

The court reviewed the history of negotiations and found that both parties had negotiated in good faith but simply failed to reach an agreement.

The court also dismissed the applicant's alternative claims for compensation for leasehold improvements, noting the lease explicitly made such improvements the tenant's responsibility.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant tenant sought to renew a commercial lease, but the parties could not agree on the market rate for basic rent.

The applicant brought an application requesting the court to fix the market rate and extend the lease, arguing the respondent breached its duty to negotiate in good faith.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the lease's renewal clause contained a specific failure provision that revoked the renewal option if mutual agreement was not reached.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to compel the landlord to accept an unagreed rent, and found no breach of the duty of good faith as both parties had negotiated genuinely but failed to agree.

The lease was extended by one month due to the respondent's delay tactics.

The applicant vendor and respondent purchaser entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a luxury new build home.

The purchaser failed to close, claiming the vendor made misrepresentations and the contract was unconscionable.

The vendor terminated the agreement and retained the purchaser's deposits totaling over $490,000.

The court found that the purchaser repudiated the agreement and that the vendor was not required to tender closing documents or conduct a pre-delivery inspection given the repudiation.

The court held the vendor was entitled to retain the deposits, finding no unconscionability, and directed the issue of the vendor's further damages to trial.

The applicant vendor brought an application for a declaration that it was entitled to retain the respondent purchaser's deposit after the purchaser failed to close a pre-construction home purchase.

The purchaser brought a cross-motion to stay the application in favour of arbitration, relying on the arbitration clause in the Tarion Addendum and the deemed arbitration clause in the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding that the dispute did not arguably fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, as the purchaser had no arguable right to terminate the agreement under the early termination conditions.

The court also found that the competence-competence principle did not require deferral to an arbitrator, as the jurisdictional challenge involved a superficial examination of the documentary record.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on a charge of failing to comply with a recognizance contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code.

The accused had been subject to a bail condition prohibiting him from driving while also serving a 90‑day administrative driver’s licence suspension under the Highway Traffic Act.

After the suspension expired and a temporary licence was issued, he drove and was charged with breaching the bail condition.

The trial judge acquitted on the basis that the accused may have honestly forgotten the bail condition and therefore lacked the necessary mens rea.

The Superior Court held that s. 145(3) requires subjective fault and that an honest mistake of fact may raise a reasonable doubt, while a mistake of law cannot.

As there was some evidentiary basis for the trial judge’s reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s state of mind, the appeal was dismissed.