Michael McRae Doyle

The defendant was charged with attempted robbery of an electronics store.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including security footage showing a masked individual attempting to enter the store, followed by a police pursuit and dynamic takedown of the suspect vehicle.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the individual in the footage based on a constellation of distinctive clothing features.

The court also concluded that the defendant's actions of wearing a balaclava and gloves on a hot day, covering a clothing logo with tape, and tugging on the locked store door established the requisite mens rea and constituted acts beyond mere preparation.

A finding of guilt was entered.

Following a summary judgment motion where the defendants were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, the court reviewed the defendants' updated Costs Outline.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs fixed at $17,542.69, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, finding the amount fair and reasonable.

Following a summary judgment motion regarding a defaulted home purchase, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff had claimed $887,915 in damages but recovered only $10,000, with the claim for carrying costs proceeding to trial.

The court found that the defendants were entirely successful on the carrying costs issue and successful overall on the motion.

The court awarded the defendants their costs on a partial indemnity scale, directing them to submit a revised bill of costs.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for 59 claimed common element deficiencies under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as expert reports or explanations, to establish on a balance of probabilities that any of the claimed items constituted a breach of warranty, a defect in construction, or a violation of the Ontario Building Code.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed Tarion's denial of all claims.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a second-year statutory warranty claim regarding the width of the ensuite shower enclosure in his new condominium.

The appellant argued the 630 mm width violated the Ontario Building Code requirements for barrier-free showers.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the cited Building Code provision applies only to commercial or public uses, not residential uses under Part 9, which has no minimum dimension requirements for shower enclosures.

The Tribunal concluded there was no breach of warranty.

The appellant developer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering Tarion Warranty Corporation to pay $1,736,271.23 to the respondent condominium corporation for major structural defects in an underground parking garage.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in finding a major structural defect, improperly extended the seven-year warranty, failed to find the claims were released, and improperly awarded damages for portions of the garage owned by others.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Tribunal's assessment of the expert evidence, contractual interpretation, or damages award, noting that the garage was a fully integrated structure requiring comprehensive repair.

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 condominium corporation appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying its claim for major structural defect (MSD) warranty coverage for its underground parking garage.

The builder argued the claim was barred by previous settlement agreements.

The Tribunal found the previous agreements only applied to first and second-year warranty claims and did not release future MSD claims.

On the merits, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's structural engineers and found that the builder's failure to install continuous expansion joints throughout the structure and the use of defective concrete resulting in delamination constituted a major structural defect under the function test.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to pay the appellant $1,565,313.43 for the cost of repairs to the garage.

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."

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.

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.