Nancy Jane Tourgis

The appellant pleaded guilty to firearms offences after accidentally discharging a loaded handgun while intoxicated and on bail for intimate partner violence, despite a lifetime firearms prohibition.

The sentencing judge imposed a global sentence of 30 months' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentence was disproportionate and sought a conditional sentence, tendering fresh evidence of rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, concluding the sentence was not demonstrably unfit and dismissing the fresh evidence application under the Palmer test.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application seeking to set aside employment agreements between the respondent corporation and an employee, alleging the agreements were oppressive and breached a family law undertaking.

They also appealed the refusal to remove the respondent as a trustee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings that the undertaking had expired, the negotiations were not secretive, and the agreements were beneficial to the corporation.

The court also found no basis to interfere with the discretionary decision not to remove the trustee.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse its registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant's officers failed to disclose required information, made false statements on applications, lacked financial responsibility after a $30 million loan was called in, and traded vehicles while unregistered.

The Tribunal found that while the officers did fail to disclose certain information and made false statements regarding the loan, the Registrar did not prove the appellant lacked financial responsibility or traded vehicles illegally in Ontario.

The Tribunal concluded that outright refusal was not required to protect the public interest and ordered the Registrar to approve the registration subject to strict conditions.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to perfect their appeals from orders compelling the sale of a condominium and imposing a non-harassment order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion, finding the delay unsatisfactorily explained, the appeal lacking merit, and ongoing prejudice to the responding parties.

The court awarded costs to the responding parties.

This endorsement addresses a motion in a certified class action regarding the scope of discovery.

The defendant, Western Union, sought to compel the representative plaintiff to answer two refused questions: (a) to produce facts and evidence from class members in the possession of class counsel, and (b) to advise whether plaintiffs’ counsel had spoken to any collectors or brokers.

The court found both questions improper, as they would effectively grant the defendant discovery of all class members and class counsel, contrary to the principles of class proceedings and privilege.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

This endorsement addresses two consolidated applications concerning a condominium unit owner's persistent anti-social and harassing behaviour.

The Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2931 sought an order compelling the unit owner to sell her unit due to her breach of a prior injunction.

Separately, other unit owners sought a permanent injunction to restrain the unit owner and her family from further harassing conduct.

The court found the unit owner in breach of the previous order, noting that complaints to regulatory bodies (LSO and HRTO) made by her and her family were not bona fide and constituted harassment.

The court granted the order compelling the sale of the unit, deeming it the only available remedy given the owner's continued unacceptable conduct.

A permanent injunction was also granted against the unit owner and her parents, prohibiting contact and further proceedings without leave of the court.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the successful applicants.

The plaintiff, Tri-South Developments Inc., sued the defendant, 583167 Ontario Inc., for breach of contract, waiver/estoppel, and unjust enrichment related to a failed condominium development project.

The core dispute revolved around a "Severance Condition" in their Contribution Agreement (CA), which required Tri-South to obtain land severance by a specific date.

Tri-South failed to meet this condition, leading to the automatic termination of the CA.

Tri-South alleged the defendant breached its duty of good faith by not disclosing its intent to rely on the severance date and by misleading them regarding design approvals.

The court dismissed all of Tri-South's claims, finding no breach of good faith, no waiver or estoppel by the defendant, and no unjust enrichment, as the plaintiff had control over the condition and failed to meet its obligations.

The plaintiffs, vulnerable seniors, alleged predatory lending practices, misrepresentations, and inadequate legal representation led to a large, unconscionable mortgage on their debt-free home.

Several defendants, including Canada Choice Investments Inc. (CCI), Anas Ayyoub, Blossom Rabinowitz, and Edmond Ohayon, brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' claims against them, arguing no reasonable cause of action was disclosed or that claims were scandalous/irrelevant.

The court dismissed all motions, finding that the plaintiffs' claims were adequately pleaded, met the high threshold for surviving a motion to strike, and that the interests of justice strongly supported allowing the action to proceed to trial.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application for an assessment of the respondent law firm's accounts, the respondent sought costs on a composite partial, substantial, and full indemnity basis.

The court found that the applicants' persistence in making unfounded and scurrilous allegations against the integrity of the late Edward Greenspan and his firm justified an award of full indemnity costs.

The court reduced the claimed amount by disallowing fees for work performed by the represented clients themselves and for a settled security for costs motion, ultimately awarding the respondent $150,262.92 all-inclusive, plus $1,500 for costs submissions.

The applicants sought an assessment of the legal accounts rendered by the respondent criminal defence law firm, alleging overcharging and breach of fixed-price and maximum-price retainer agreements.

The court found no fixed-price agreement existed for the preliminary inquiry and that the firm did not overcharge under the maximum-price contract for the trial phase.

The court also held that allegations of deficient legal services were barred by issue estoppel, having been dismissed in prior criminal proceedings.

Finding no special circumstances to justify an assessment outside the statutory limitation period, the application was dismissed.

This motion concerned the removal of RSM Canada Limited as the Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) of the Estate of Peter Trezzi and as the court-appointed Manager of two corporations.

The moving party, Albert Trezzi, also sought the appointment of himself and his two sisters as Estate Trustees.

RSM did not oppose its discharge but sought a holdback for professional fees related to a pending passing of accounts.

The court granted the removal of RSM and the appointment of the new Estate Trustees, and ordered a holdback of $250,000 for RSM's fees, finding it equitable and consistent with public policy, despite the beneficiaries' objections to the quantum.

This is a consolidated appeal from anti-SLAPP motions dismissing defamation actions.

The actions arose from tweets and an email suggesting the appellant's medical clinic discriminated against the LGBTQ community.

The motion judge dismissed both actions, finding the communications were fair comment.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred regarding Evans-Bitten's fair comment defence, concluding there were grounds to believe malice would defeat it.

After conducting the public interest weighing, the Court found the public interest in allowing the appellant's action against Evans-Bitten to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting her expression, given the substantial harm and low public interest in protecting gratuitous personal attacks.

However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the action against Kirkconnell and Smith, finding no grounds to believe their fair comment defence would fail due to recklessness.

The defendants, a law firm and one of its partners, brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached an ad hoc fiduciary duty and aided and abetted a breach of an undertaking and a breach of the Business Corporations Act while representing a corporation in an employment matter.

The court granted the motion to strike without leave to amend, finding no facts to support a fiduciary relationship and holding that the claims for aiding and abetting were contrary to public policy as they would interfere with the lawyer-client relationship.

This endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following a successful application by Costco Wholesale Corporation to enforce arbitral awards and a U.S. judgment on costs against TicketOps Corporation.

Costco sought $65,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while TicketOps proposed $50,000 plus HST.

The court, considering factors under Rule 57.01, found that while the time spent by Costco's counsel was not disputed, the hourly rates of some junior lawyers were higher than reasonably expected.

The court awarded Costco $60,000 on a partial indemnity basis, deeming it a fair and reasonable amount within the parties' reasonable expectations.

The appellant, Skyline Real Estate Acquisitions (III) Inc., appealed a lower court decision that dismissed its application for the return of a $3.25 million deposit.

Skyline had refused to close on an agreement to purchase two shopping plazas, alleging the vendor (Peterborough Retail Portfolio LP) failed to satisfy conditions related to key tenant tenancies (Walmart and Dollarama).

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the vendor had made commercially reasonable efforts and provided substantial assurances, while the purchaser failed to act reasonably and in good faith by insisting on strict technical compliance to exit a contract it no longer desired.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded costs.

The defendants, Costco entities, brought a motion to stay an action initiated by TicketOps Corporation, alleging breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and conversion of intellectual property.

The motion was based on arbitration clauses in agreements between the parties.

The plaintiff argued that the claims primarily related to platforms not covered by the arbitration clauses.

Applying the Haas v. Gunasekaram framework, the court found that the defendants had arguably demonstrated that the arbitration agreements applied to all platforms in dispute.

The plaintiff failed to prove that the arbitration provisions were clearly inoperative or unconscionable.

Consequently, the court stayed the action in favour of arbitration, acknowledging the potential for fragmented adjudication due to multiple arbitral forums.

Costco brought an application to enforce an international arbitral award and a U.S. District Court judgment against TicketOps for failing to remit funds owed to suppliers.

TicketOps opposed the application and brought a motion to convert it into an action, arguing a denial of natural justice and public policy concerns, including an allegation of bias because the arbitrator was Facebook friends with Costco's U.S. counsel.

The court dismissed TicketOps' motion and granted the application, finding no valid grounds under the Model Law to refuse recognition and enforcement of the arbitral awards.

The appellant, ALYU Inc., appealed a lower court decision regarding the interpretation of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for commercial units.

ALYU argued that the estimated measurements in the APS should not include a proportional amount of common elements.

The application judge had interpreted the APS to include common elements, dismissing ALYU's application.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the contractual interpretation.

The court affirmed that the BOMA 1996 Standard, referenced in the APS, requires the unit area to be "grossed-up" to account for common areas, and that the interpretation aligned with the parties' mutual objective intentions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for settlement and fee approval in a certified class proceeding against the defendant developer regarding abortive purchases of hotel condominium units.

The court approved the $5.75 million settlement as fair and reasonable, noting it was a modest success given the litigation risks.

The court also approved class counsel's fee of $2.2 million, with $1.25 million payable immediately and a $950,000 holdback pending final distribution.

A motion by former, disqualified class counsel to approve a fee-sharing agreement with current class counsel was dismissed, as the former counsel had been disqualified, assumed no ongoing risk, and provided no services under the current retainer.

The landlord, Camcentre Holdings Inc., appealed a lower court decision that found its Notice of Termination of a commercial lease ineffective.

The termination was based on a demolition clause requiring "all requisite permits and authorizations for the commencement of such redevelopment, reconstruction or demolition" by the end of the notice period.

The landlord argued that asbestos abatement, which did not require a permit, constituted the commencement of demolition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the Notice of Termination was ineffective because the landlord had not obtained a demolition permit by the specified date, and asbestos abatement was not considered the "commencement of demolition" for the purpose of the lease clause.

The appeal was dismissed.