No one appearing

The plaintiffs, eight long-term employees, brought a motion for default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action after the defendants closed their manufacturing facility and relocated it without notice.

The court found that the defendants wrongfully dismissed the plaintiffs and discriminated against them based on their age.

The court awarded damages for unpaid wages, statutory and common law notice, loss of benefits, human rights breaches, and aggravated damages.

The corporate defendants and the personal defendant were found jointly and severally liable under the common employer doctrine and the oppression remedy.

The plaintiff moved to validate service of an amended statement of claim and to extend the time for its service.

The amended claim substituted the originally named defendant with a newly identified driver, discovered at examinations for discovery.

The amended claim was not served on the new defendant until more than twenty-seven months after the amending order was issued.

The court granted the insurer standing as a friend of the court under Rule 13.02.

The motion to validate service was dismissed as personal service required no validation.

The motion to extend time was granted on the basis that the prejudice alleged by the insurer was largely self-created by its own failure to take available steps, and no direct evidence of actual prejudice from the delay itself was established.

The court declined to dismiss the action for delay, finding the conduct, while serious, did not reach the inordinate and inexcusable level required.

The improperly filed trial record — accompanied by a false solicitor's certificate — was set aside pursuant to Rules 1.04(1) and (2).

The applicant sought to enforce an oral agreement made with his predeceased son, pursuant to which the applicant and his seriously ill wife transferred title of their home to the son in exchange for a life interest in the property and approximately $71,000 in cash, while conveying over $175,000 in equity.

The son died unexpectedly, and the estate subsequently ceased paying the mortgage and threatened to sell the property.

The court found that the agreement, though unwritten, was enforceable pursuant to the doctrine of part performance, as the extensive acts of performance by all parties were unequivocally referable to dealings with the land and established clear and irreversible detrimental reliance.

Enforcing the Statute of Frauds in these circumstances would have been unconscionable.

The court declared a binding life interest, ordered registration of an instrument on title reflecting the life interest, and awarded damages of $22,047.94 for mortgage and insurance payments the applicant was compelled to make during the estate's non-performance, on both contractual and unjust enrichment grounds.

Costs were fixed at $43,245.44, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appeal concerned a dispute over interpretation of a will and administration of testamentary trusts.

The appellant challenged the application judge's interpretation and sought appellate intervention on factual, legal, and discretionary grounds.

The court found no palpable and overriding error, no error of law, and no error in principle.

The appeal was dismissed.

On costs, the court directed that one trust absorb the corporate respondent's costs and the appellant's personal costs on a full indemnity basis without recoupment from the appellant personally due to an arguable ambiguity in the will.

The Crown appealed stays of proceedings granted to two respondents charged in a massive cross-border drug trafficking investigation.

The application judge had found the delay exceeded the Jordan ceiling and declined to deduct time for joint-trial scheduling or find the case exceptionally complex.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the 107 days of joint-trial scheduling delay should have been deducted as a discrete exceptional circumstance.

Furthermore, the overarching complexity of the multi-agency project prosecution, which involved voluminous disclosure, justified the remaining modest delay above the ceiling.

The stays were set aside and the matters remitted for trial.

The moving parties brought a motion to transfer part of an appeal to the Divisional Court, extend the time to perfect the appeal, and stay the trial judgment pending appeal.

The underlying dispute involved three brothers and a jointly owned residential investment property, resulting in a trial judgment that dismissed a breach of contract claim and ordered partition and sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to transfer, opting to combine the appeals under section 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to avoid inconsistent results.

The court granted the extension of time to perfect the appeal and granted a stay of the partition and sale order pending appeal, finding serious issues to be tried and a risk of irreparable harm.

A self-represented applicant, previously designated as a vexatious litigant, sought leave of the court to bring various proceedings relating to disputes with his landlord and the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The applicant sought to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board decision, bring an application regarding a leaking air conditioning unit, and review how another application was being handled.

The court declined to grant leave, finding that the proposed proceedings had no prospect of success and amounted to an abuse of process.

The court noted that while vexatious litigants retain the opportunity to advance legitimate claims, the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for the proposed proceedings.

The estate trustee of Frieda Holzgethan's estate sought the court's opinion, advice and direction regarding the interpretation of the residue clause of the testator's will dated December 22, 1997.

The testator had five siblings and one child (Magrid), who predeceased the testator.

The residue clause directed distribution to the five siblings per stirpes.

Four siblings predeceased the testator; one (Hilda Oswald) survived but later died.

The court interpreted the residue clause to distribute the estate equally among the five siblings' family branches (stirps), with each predeceased sibling's share passing to their lineal descendants.

The court rejected the argument that the entire residue should pass to Hilda Oswald as the sole surviving sibling.

The court also awarded the estate trustee's costs of $32,878.87 payable from the estate.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Behrouz Salehi’s motion for directions regarding his long-running dispute with the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (APEO).

The court found it had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, as there was no proceeding pending before it.

The endorsement reviews the procedural history of Mr. Salehi’s litigation, including previous unsuccessful attempts to challenge the dismissal of his action and to set aside prior orders.

The court concluded that there are no further legal avenues available to Mr. Salehi and prohibited him from filing further documents regarding this dispute without leave.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the commercial landlord, 1660841 Ontario Ltd., against the tenant, 2259778 Ontario Inc., for breach of lease obligations.

The court found no genuine issue for trial on either liability or damages, awarding the landlord $68,043.52 in damages and $5,000 in costs, plus pre- and post-judgment interest.

The decision applies the Supreme Court’s guidance in Hryniak v. Mauldin regarding summary judgment and the use of fact-finding powers under Rule 20.

The Corporation of the City of Quinte West sought a declaration of abandonment and transfer of title for the Stone Church United Cemetery.

The court found that the cemetery lands were abandoned within the meaning of the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, and granted the requested declaratory and ancillary relief to facilitate the transfer of ownership to the municipality.

The court also dispensed with the requirements for service and filing a factum, given the lack of opposition and the straightforward nature of the application.

The court considered a motion by the plaintiff for substituted service of a Statement of Claim, an extension of time for service, and leave to amend the Statement of Claim.

The court denied substituted service through the defendant’s insurer, TD Insurance, finding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that all reasonable steps to effect personal service had been taken, nor that the requirements for substituted service on an insurer were met.

The court granted an extension of time for service and leave to amend the Statement of Claim, finding no prejudice to the defendants that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action as frivolous under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, The Estate of Brajak James, repeatedly failed to articulate a justiciable issue in its requisition forms, despite multiple opportunities and judicial guidance.

The court found the claims to be unintelligible, lacking legal merit, and in some cases nonsensical or based on irrelevant religious texts.

The action was dismissed without costs.

The plaintiffs sought and were granted leave to issue certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against two parcels of land transferred by the defendant Jazzar Holdings Inc. to individuals believed to be the principal’s parents for nominal consideration, while a lawsuit was pending.

The court found a high probability of success in the main action, evidence of intent to defeat or delay creditors, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs.

The order was made on an ex parte basis due to urgency and risk of dissipation of assets.

The plaintiff, Lac Seul First Nation, sought a Norwich order compelling the Bank of Nova Scotia to provide information identifying individuals and corporations alleged to have defrauded the plaintiff.

The motion was brought on notice to the Bank, which took no position, and without notice to the other defendants.

The court found that the plaintiff had a bona fide claim and that the Bank was the only practicable source of the information.

The order was granted as the interests of justice and necessity were established.

The plaintiff brought an uncontested motion for costs following successful motions for a vesting order and a finding of contempt against the defendant estate trustee.

The defendant had failed to comply with a previous court order to transfer property to the plaintiff, who was acting as litigation guardian for two minor beneficiaries.

The court found exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from standard estate costs rules due to the defendant's contemptuous conduct and the plaintiff's vulnerability.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $16,920.20.

The moving party tenant sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent landlord from interfering with its use of a commercial truck yard.

The respondent had been using the property without paying rent and had locked the moving party out following a violent robbery.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding that the continuous interference with the tenant's property rights constituted irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the tenant.

The court ordered the respondent to vacate the property and granted the tenant exclusive possession.

The plaintiff, a property developer, moved for default judgment against the defendant for failing to close on an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The defendant defaulted on deposit payments and did not respond to communications or defend the action.

The plaintiff terminated the agreement, remarketed the property, and resold it at a lower price due to a market downturn.

The court granted default judgment to the plaintiff for damages representing the shortfall from the resale, plus legal and real estate fees, after finding the defendant breached the agreement and the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to mitigate losses.

Costs were also awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's counsel brought a motion seeking an order to continue the action and appoint a litigation administrator for the deceased plaintiff's estate.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding insufficient evidence to establish that there was no executor or administrator for the estate.

The court also raised concerns about the appropriateness of appointing a lawyer from the plaintiff's firm as litigation administrator, particularly regarding the implications for examination for discovery in a subrogated claim and potential ethical conflicts.

The court further noted the necessity of amending the statement of claim to reflect the change in party representation.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' Statement of Defence and dismiss their counterclaim due to repeated failures to attend examinations for discovery and comply with court orders over several years.

The court applied the common sense factors from Advanced Farm Technologies and found the defendants' non-compliance was knowing, intentional, and material to the litigation.

The motion was granted, the defendants' pleadings were struck, and they were noted in default, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.