Michael McRae Doyle

The court considered a motion for approval of a settlement in a civil action arising from the surreptitious recording and distribution of a nude video of a minor student at school.

The court found the materials filed in support of the settlement insufficient, particularly regarding the impact on the minor plaintiff, the litigation risks, and the rationale for the settlement quantum.

The court directed the parties to provide further and better materials addressing these deficiencies before the settlement could be approved.

The appellant, Grandfield Homes (Kenton) Ltd., appealed a lower court decision that denied its request for a trial on damages beyond forfeited deposits in a failed residential real estate transaction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the claim for additional damages was not sufficiently pleaded in the notice of application or supporting evidence.

The court emphasized that relief sought must be precisely stated in pleadings and that counsel's confirmation during cross-examination that additional damages were not sought in the application was binding.

The court also agreed that ordering a separate trial on damages would result in an unnecessary bifurcation and multiplicity of proceedings, causing potential prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant sought a declaration of entitlement to a deposit paid by the respondent under a contract to purchase a new build home, and a direction for a trial on further damages.

The respondent refused to close, alleging misrepresentations regarding square footage and finish quality.

The court found no valid misrepresentations, enforcing the entire agreement clause against the respondent despite claims of limited English and alleged verbal assurances.

The court declared the applicant entitled to retain the $502,500 deposit, finding a 15% deposit not unconscionable.

However, the court dismissed the applicant's request for a trial on further damages, noting it was not sought in the initial application and would lead to inefficient bifurcation of proceedings.

The appellant law firm appealed the dismissal of its application seeking to set a market rate for lease renewal and compensation for renovations, and also sought leave to appeal a costs order from a prior cross-motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the respondent landlord did not breach its duty to act in good faith during lease negotiations, that the expert evidence was properly considered, and that compensation for renovations was not warranted.

The court also refused leave to appeal the costs order from the cross-motion, finding no strong grounds to interfere with the motion judge's discretion.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of agreements governing the distribution of settlement funds and the reimbursement of litigation costs following the settlement of two professional negligence actions against KPMG.

The appellants, Benzer Ltd. and Rajneesh Mathur, argued that the application judge erred in denying their reimbursement for costs under an Assignment Agreement, contending that the phrase "if any" regarding legal costs awarded should not apply when no costs were awarded.

They also argued that security for costs funds should be included in "net amounts recovered" for calculating their 15% compensation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's interpretation that the "if any" clause was valid and that security for costs were litigation expenses, not "net amounts recovered."

During a criminal trial for fraud, the accused, Claire Graham and Roslyn Blake, moved for a mistrial and the discharge of two jurors (Juror 1 and Juror 4) due to alleged misconduct involving outside research.

The Crown opposed the motion.

The court found that while Jurors 1 and 4 technically breached instructions by researching the lawyers involved, their conduct was not egregious enough to compromise trial fairness or cause actual prejudice.

The court distinguished their actions from a previously discharged juror (Juror 12) who had researched an accused and was found to be less than candid.

The requests for discharge and a mistrial were dismissed, with the court determining that a strong mid-trial instruction to the jury was the appropriate remedy.

The applicants sought a stay of fraud charges due to the loss of a video-taped complainant statement, arguing a breach of their Charter rights to full answer and defence.

The court found the Crown breached section 7 of the Charter due to unacceptable police negligence in preserving the evidence, as a clear policy for making copies was not followed and no explanation was provided for the loss.

However, the court determined that the applicants failed to demonstrate substantial or material prejudice, or an inability to put forward their defence, given the availability of other extensive disclosure.

Consequently, the application for a stay was dismissed, but the court deemed an adverse inference instruction to the jury appropriate as a lesser remedy.