Miguna Miguna

The plaintiff moved for default judgment against a defendant noted in default who had fraudulently induced him to advance large sums of money on promises of investment returns.

The court granted default judgment awarding $327,850 in liquidated damages, $250,000 in general damages for losses due to the defendant's dishonest conduct, and $100,000 in punitive damages for reprehensible conduct in taking advantage of an unsophisticated person and depriving him of much of his life savings.

The court also awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $89,448.60, exceeding the amount sought by the plaintiff, based on the Bill of Costs and the defendant's conduct.

The applicant, the 85-year-old mother of the deceased filmmaker Charles Herbert Officer, sought extensive financial and corporate disclosure from various respondents to support her application for dependant support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The respondents, including the estate trustee, the deceased's former partner, and business associates, had already provided significant financial disclosure, including tax returns, bank statements, and a business valuation.

Justice Faieta dismissed the applicant's motion for further disclosure, finding the requests overbroad, unnecessary, and lacking proportionality, with minor exceptions consented to by the Estate Trustee.

The application was also dismissed on consent against several professional respondents.

The moving party, who became the sole owner of a condominium by right of survivorship following her former partner's death, brought a motion for vacant possession and occupation rent against the deceased's 85-year-old mother.

The mother argued she had a verbal agreement with the deceased to live in the condo rent-free for life.

The court found the mother's hearsay evidence regarding the deceased's promise to be unreliable and unenforceable for lack of consideration.

The court granted the motion, ordering the mother to deliver vacant possession and pay occupation rent of $2,200 per month from the date the moving party ceased financially supporting her occupation.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice and wrongful death action against an emergency room physician, two nurses, and a hospital following the sudden death of a 40-year-old woman from an acute aortic dissection.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached the standard of care by failing to diagnose the condition, failing to order a CT angiogram, and failing to refer the patient to a specialist in a timely manner.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the medical records were falsified and that the defendants' care was compromised by anti-Black racism and sexism.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the physician and nurses met the applicable standards of care.

The court held that the patient presented with symptoms consistent with more common conditions like acute coronary syndrome, and that the physician's investigative approach was appropriate.

The court also found no evidence of record falsification or discriminatory conduct.

During a medical negligence trial, the plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the evidence of the defendant doctor's emergency medicine expert.

The plaintiffs alleged the expert was biased because his spouse, also a physician, had privileges at the defendant hospital.

The court applied the Mohan and White Burgess framework and found no disqualifying bias, noting the expert's opinion was formed before his spouse obtained privileges and he had no relationship with the defendants.

The motion to strike the expert evidence was dismissed.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy for persistent late payment of rent.

At the hearing, the Board member refused to allow the tenants to present bank records from a phone to prove they had paid rent, while relying on the landlord's uncorroborated testimony.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached procedural fairness by denying the tenants an opportunity to present their evidence.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

The Landlord appealed an order granting relief from forfeiture to the Tenant, who failed to provide timely notice to renew a lease.

The application judge found the Tenant made diligent efforts to renew and that the Landlord "studiously avoided" contact, motivated by racial stereotyping.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings or the exercise of discretion, including the relevance of anti-Black racism in the Landlord's refusal to negotiate.

This endorsement addresses a costs motion following the dismissal of a contempt motion.

The respondents, who had successfully defended against the contempt motion, sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicants objected, citing the respondents' non-compliance with prior orders and improper filing of materials.

The court, exercising its broad discretion under the Courts of Justice Act, declined to award any costs, emphasizing the acrimonious nature of the dispute and the concern that a costs award would further inflame the situation and potentially lead to more inappropriate motions.

The tenant appellants appealed two orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy.

They argued the Board erred in law and denied them procedural fairness.

At the hearing, the appellants' counsel advised that the transcripts of the Board hearings had just been received but were not yet filed with the court.

The Divisional Court adjourned the appeal, finding that the transcripts were necessary to fairly determine the procedural fairness issues raised.

A case conference was directed to fix an expedited return date.

The applicants brought a contempt motion arising from an acrimonious law partnership dispute and alleged breaches of earlier interlocutory orders and a subsequent settlement agreement.

The court held that the real complaint concerned non-compliance with the settlement, which should be addressed through enforcement proceedings, amendment of the application, or claims for rescission or damages rather than contempt.

Emphasizing that contempt is a discretionary remedy of last resort, the court declined to make a finding of contempt where the underlying orders were framed in general terms and the evidentiary record was sharply conflicting.

The motion was dismissed, with directions that certain confidential and personal information be redacted before filing.

Following a successful application for relief from forfeiture involving findings of anti-Black racism, the applicant sought full indemnity costs.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, noting that while the respondents' substantive position was unsuccessful, their conduct during the proceeding was professional and not untoward.

The court also found that an offer to settle did not trigger Rule 49.10 consequences.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $41,790, which the court found to be fair and reasonable.

The applicant tenant, a Black-owned restaurant, missed the deadline to provide written notice to renew its commercial lease.

The tenant made numerous attempts to contact the landlord, which were ignored.

The landlord subsequently attempted to terminate the overholding tenancy, citing a preference for 'family-oriented' businesses and making racially coded complaints about the tenant's clientele.

The court granted the tenant's application for relief from forfeiture and an injunction against eviction, finding that the tenant had acted in good faith, the landlord suffered no prejudice, and terminating the lease would give force to the landlord's unconscious biases.

A case conference was held to set a schedule for the hearing of the application.

The court corrected a clerical error in the respondent's name on consent, set a timetable for further materials and cross-examinations, and scheduled a half-day hearing on the merits.

The interim order allowing the applicant to occupy and operate its business from the premises, provided rent is paid, was extended pending the hearing.

This is a commercial landlord-tenant dispute where the applicant sought to restrain the respondents from terminating its tenancy.

The court established a schedule for filing materials and, on an interim interim basis, ordered that the tenancy remain at a standstill, allowing the applicant to remain in the premises and preventing the respondents from taking further eviction steps pending a further case conference.

Following the successful summary judgment motions of seven defendant physicians in a medical negligence action, the court assessed the defendants' costs.

The defendants sought $78,639.56 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court fixed the costs at $68,694.86, finding the amount claimed for the motions slightly disproportionate to their complexity.

However, recognizing the genuine impecuniosity of the plaintiffs and the tragic circumstances of the underlying case, the court stayed the enforcement of the costs award pending the final disposition of the remaining claims against the other defendants.

The plaintiffs brought medical negligence claims against numerous physicians and a hospital following the death of a patient from an acute aortic dissection.

Seven of the defendant physicians moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs failed to produce expert evidence establishing the applicable standard of care, breach, and causation.

The court granted the summary judgment motions, finding that the plaintiffs' expert reports did not establish the essential elements of negligence against the moving defendants, and that this was not a clear case where expert evidence could be dispensed with.

The court also granted the plaintiffs' counter-motion to consolidate the actions and serve a jury notice, but dismissed their request for production of original hospital records, as those records had been destroyed in accordance with hospital policy after being digitized.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order regarding child support, spousal support, and custody arrangements.

The father had declared bankruptcy after failing to pay an equalization payment and costs to the respondent mother.

The motion judge had ordered the father to pay lump sum spousal support equal to the unpaid equalization payment and imposed a charging order on his assets.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the lump sum spousal support and charging order because the motion judge failed to properly consider the implications of the father's bankruptcy and the principles governing lump sum support.

The Court also ordered the mother to pay prospective child support for the daughter residing with the father.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his civil action for false arrest, wrongful detention, and wrongful search against customs officials.

He alleged he was targeted for a search at Pearson International Airport due to racial profiling.

The trial judge found the customs officer had reasonable grounds for the search based on multiple indicators and that the appellant was not denied his right to counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and no evidence of bias.

The appellant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on an appeal involving claims of false arrest and Charter breaches.

The proposed evidence included correspondence, expert reports, and training manuals.

The Divisional Court applied the Sengmueller test and found that the evidence was either not fresh, not relevant, or could have been obtained with reasonable diligence prior to trial.

The motion was dismissed, although the factum from the court below was accepted to show the arguments made due to a tape erasure.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, and uttering a death threat.

The primary issue on appeal was whether the police's retention of the appellant's fingerprints, which were taken during a previous arrest for charges that were subsequently withdrawn, violated his s. 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The Court of Appeal held that the retention of fingerprints after charges are withdrawn does not automatically violate s. 8.

The police policy of destroying fingerprints upon request strikes a reasonable balance between the individual's privacy interests and the state's law enforcement objectives.

Since the appellant never requested the destruction of his fingerprints, their retention and subsequent use to identify him in the sexual assault investigation were reasonable and lawful.

The appeal was dismissed.