Molly M. Reynolds

The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of privacy, alleging the defendant accessed his personal information and created fake online profiles.

The defendant denied the allegations and brought a counterclaim for sexual battery, alleging the plaintiff penetrated him without a condom and without his consent.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding insufficient evidence that the defendant accessed the information or created the profiles.

The court granted the defendant's counterclaim, finding the plaintiff committed sexual battery by penetrating the defendant without a condom, and awarded $35,000 in damages.

The parties brought a motion to approve settlement agreements and distribution protocols in class actions arising from data breaches at BMO and CIBC (Simplii) that affected over 120,000 clients.

The proposed settlements provided a combined $22.9 million to compensate class members for time spent and inconvenience, with tiered compensation based on the sensitivity of the compromised information.

The court applied the Mancinelli factors and found the settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, particularly given the litigation risks associated with the tort of intrusion upon seclusion for third-party hacker intrusions.

The plaintiff brought a motion for approval of class counsel fees and a representative plaintiff honourarium following a class action settlement.

The court approved a $5,000 honourarium for the representative plaintiffs, finding they meaningfully contributed to access to justice and assumed no financial risk.

The court also approved class counsel fees calculated at 25% of the recovery, resulting in a 2.6 multiplier on docketed time, which was deemed appropriate given the significant risks assumed by counsel.

This is a costs endorsement following the certification of a class action.

The plaintiffs, having succeeded in certifying their action, sought substantial costs totaling over $368,000.

The court significantly reduced the requested amount, disallowing costs related to scheduling, a companion motion in Quebec, and expert fees/counsel time for experts at the certification stage.

The court found that the defendant's opposition to certification was modest and did not constitute a "full attack" warranting such extensive costs at that stage.

The final award was $84,500 plus HST in partial indemnity costs and $27,119.34 in disbursements.

This proposed class action alleged that Bell Mobility Inc. breached the privacy rights of its data service customers by using their personal information for its "Relevant Advertising Program" (RAP) without consent.

The plaintiffs sought certification of the class action.

The court certified the action, including all pleaded causes of action (contract, waiver of tort, negligence, breach of confidence, intrusion upon seclusion, consumer protection legislation, and Quebec civil law claims) and common issues.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that some claims were redundant and made the class proceeding unmanageable, affirming that it is not the judge's role at certification to pare down properly pleaded causes of action.

The decision also addressed the availability and methodology for aggregate damages.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for approval of a settlement and class counsel fees in a class action regarding a data breach on the defendants' online photocentre website.

The settlement provided for credit monitoring and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses up to a maximum exposure of $1.25 million.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved the settlement along with class counsel fees of $250,000.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of part of its application for relief arising from a fire at an adjoining semi-detached property.

The appellant sought recovery of losses caused by the fire and subsequent conduct of the respondent and its predecessor.

The key issue was whether the respondent, having purchased the damaged property several months after the fire, became liable for damages caused to the appellant's property prior to the respondent's acquisition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the respondent had no involvement in and could not be responsible for damages accrued before it acquired the property.

The court also reduced the respondent's costs award on appeal.

The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendant for breach of confidence, intentional infliction of mental distress, and invasion of privacy after the defendant posted an intimate video of the plaintiff online.

The defendant successfully moved to set aside the default judgment.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal the order setting aside the default judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's application of the test to set aside a default judgment, and concluding that a trial on the merits would be of general importance to the development of the law.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a decision that set aside a default judgment against the defendant.

The original default judgment found the defendant liable for breach of confidence, intentional infliction of mental distress, and invasion of privacy, awarding significant damages and an injunction.

The motion judge (Dow J.) set aside the default judgment, allowing the defendant to defend on the merits, conditional on a costs payment.

The plaintiff argued that the motion judge erred by considering the defendant's proposed defence despite intentional default, failing to distinguish liability from damages, and not adequately considering psychological harm.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and emphasizing the importance of a trial on the merits for the development of tort law in this unique area.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against Walmart Canada Inc. and PNI Digital Media Inc. following a data breach at Walmart's online photocentre.

The parties reached a settlement agreement providing for credit monitoring and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses up to a combined maximum of $750,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to certify the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes.

The court found that all criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met and granted the motion.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a previous decision that dismissed part of the applicant's application and converted the balance into an action.

The respondent sought 83% of its partial indemnity costs, arguing it was substantially successful on the dismissed issue.

The applicant argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge.

The court awarded the respondent $65,000 in costs for the dismissed issue, finding the applicant's changing case theory unnecessarily increased costs, and reserved the remaining costs to the trial judge.

Lixo Investments Limited applied for relief concerning demolition work by FCHT Holdings on an adjacent property, particularly regarding a shared party wall damaged by a prior fire.

The application sought damages for loss of use and reconstruction costs, alleging FCHT was responsible for pre-acquisition fire effects and negligent demolition.

The court dismissed claims related to pre-acquisition events, finding FCHT did not inherit prior tortious conduct.

For claims regarding FCHT's demolition work and its impact on the party wall, the court found material facts in dispute requiring viva voce evidence and expert testimony.

Consequently, the balance of the application was converted into an expedited action for trial.

The appellant landlords appealed a decision declaring that their consent was not required for the respondent tenants to assign and sublease commercial leases as part of a joint venture.

The tenants proposed assigning the leases to a limited partnership whose general partner was the existing tenant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that a limited partnership can only hold property through its general partner.

Since the leases were being assigned to the general partner, which was the existing tenant, the assignment fell within the leases' affiliate exception and did not require the landlords' consent.

The court considered whether an interim injunctive order granted during an adjournment of an application remained in effect after the application did not proceed on the scheduled return date.

The applicant had obtained an adjournment to conduct cross-examinations on affidavit evidence but failed to conduct the cross-examination and failed to file the necessary confirmation for the rescheduled hearing.

The court held that the interim injunction was granted on strict terms tied to the adjournment and anticipated cross-examination.

Because those conditions were not fulfilled and the application did not proceed, the basis for the interim relief no longer existed.

The court confirmed that the interim injunction expired on the scheduled return date but allowed the applicant to seek further interim relief in a future appearance.

The applicants, anchor tenants in three shopping malls, sought to assign and sublease their leases to a joint venture limited partnership.

The respondent landlords refused consent.

The court held that consent was not required because the leases were being assigned to the general partner, which was an affiliate of the existing tenant, thus falling under the leases' Affiliate Exception.

Alternatively, the court found that the landlords unreasonably withheld consent for two of the leases, as the tenant would remain liable and continue operating the stores, but the landlord was entitled to arbitrarily withhold consent for the third lease based on its specific terms.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Ontario Judicial Council dismissing his complaints against a judge acting as a public inquiry commissioner.

The Council had dismissed the complaints on the basis that they concerned the judge's decision-making duties, which are subject to judicial review, rather than judicial misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Council's decisions were reasonable and that the application was barred by unreasonable delay of up to 69 months.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission applied for judicial review of a Joint Board decision granting conditional approval to Walker Aggregates Inc. to develop a quarry in the Niagara Escarpment Plan area.

The applicant argued the Board failed to properly apply the Niagara Escarpment Plan, improperly delegated approval of an Adaptive Management Plan to the Minister of Natural Resources, and erred in assessing noise impacts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision reasonable, as it correctly applied the relevant planning documents, did not improperly delegate its authority, and reasonably assessed environmental and noise impacts.

Several public interest organizations sought leave to intervene as friends of the court on a motion to strike a constitutional application alleging that federal and provincial housing policies violated sections 7 and 15 of the Charter by failing to ensure adequate housing.

The proposed interveners argued they could provide perspectives relating to poverty, disability, housing policy, international human rights obligations, and constitutional remedies.

The court emphasized that intervention on a Rule 21 motion is exceptional and requires a showing that the intervener will make a useful legal contribution beyond the parties’ submissions without prejudicing the proceeding.

Interventions focused primarily on social context or policy impacts were rejected because the motion concerned a narrow legal question regarding whether the application disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court granted limited intervention status to three groups with specific expertise relevant to Charter interpretation, international human rights law, and constitutional remedies, while dismissing the remaining intervention motions.

The plaintiffs, representing a class of Barbados participating policyholders, brought an action against Manulife following the transfer of their policies to Life of Barbados (LOB) in 1996 and Manulife's subsequent demutualization in 1999.

The plaintiffs claimed that Manulife owed them a duty of care and a fiduciary duty to protect their rights to participate in the demutualization.

The court found that while it was reasonably foreseeable that Manulife would demutualize, no duty of care or fiduciary duty was owed to the plaintiffs because their rights as policyholders were lawfully extinguished by the transfer agreement, which was approved by regulators in Barbados and Canada.

The action was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order dismissing their claim against the respondent for knowing assistance in breach of fiduciary duty.

The dispute arose from the sale of the appellants' shares in a family-owned shopping mall to the remaining family members, who then sold a 50% interest to the respondent at a higher valuation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no evidence the respondent had actual knowledge of the alleged fraudulent and dishonest conduct or breach of fiduciary duties towards the appellants.