Olivia Eng

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.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an application to enforce an oral agreement and the granting of an application for partition and sale of property.

The successful parties (Bruno Rosso, Nancy Rosso, and Salvatore Rosso) sought costs awards.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale to Bruno and Nancy, and on a partial indemnity scale to Salvatore.

The court considered factors including the complete success of the parties, the complexity of the issues, the proportionality of costs to the property value, the reasonableness of counsel fees and time spent, and the conduct of the unsuccessful party during litigation.

The appellant brought an action against her former lawyers alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligence in connection with a wrongful dismissal settlement.

The appellant claimed the respondent lawyers conspired with her former employer, preferred the employer's interests, and induced her to enter into an improvident settlement.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding no genuine issue for trial and rejecting allegations of collusion.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the motion judge properly assessed whether the respondents' advice was reasonable and whether the settlement was improvident given the litigation risks.

This is a costs decision following the successful application by the applicants to set aside an arbitral award and associated costs award on grounds of procedural unfairness.

The applicants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $49,636.38 against Dr. Frank Fowlie.

The court awarded the full amount requested, finding the applicants were entirely successful and the quantum was fair and reasonable.

The court rejected Dr. Fowlie's argument that he should not bear costs as he was not responsible for the arbitrator's conduct, noting that he actively opposed the application and did not challenge the procedural ruling during the arbitration.

The court also rejected any suggestion that Wrestling Canada Lutte should share in the costs award.

The court considered two competing applications between brothers who jointly owned a triplex property.

Domenic Rosso sought to enforce an alleged oral agreement for the purchase of Bruno Rosso’s one-third interest in the property, while Bruno Rosso sought partition and sale of the property.

The court found that there was no enforceable oral contract due to lack of agreement on essential terms, and that even if there had been, it would have been unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds and not saved by part performance.

The court granted Bruno’s application for partition and sale, and ordered an accounting.

The applicants sought to set aside an arbitration award under section 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, arguing that the arbitrator’s mid-hearing switch from an oral to a written process, and refusal to consider their closing submissions, constituted unequal and unfair treatment.

The Court found that the applicants were denied their statutory rights to an oral hearing and to equal treatment, and set aside the award, remitting the matter for a new hearing before a different arbitration panel.

This costs endorsement follows the granting of anti-SLAPP motions by the three defendants.

The court addresses the scale and quantum of costs, the issue of duplication between legal teams, and the entitlement of a self-represented litigant to costs.

The court awards full indemnity costs to the defendants, finding the requests fair and reasonable, and declines to award compensation to the self-represented defendant for his own time.

This decision grants an interlocutory injunction exempting all existing supervised consumption sites (SCSs) in Ontario from the operation of section 2 of the Community Care and Recovery Act, 2024, pending a final decision on the merits.

The court finds that the three-part test for injunctive relief is met: there is a serious issue to be tried regarding Charter rights, irreparable harm would result from SCS closures, and the balance of convenience favours the applicants.

The ruling details the public health crisis of opioid use, the role of SCSs in harm reduction, and the disproportionate impact of closures on marginalized populations.

The applicant was convicted of multiple sexual offences against his daughter and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.

He applied for bail pending his conviction appeal, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting prior consistent statements and in her treatment of a Browne v. Dunn issue, and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding that while the grounds of appeal were not frivolous, they were weak and did not clearly surpass the minimal standard required to outweigh the strong public interest in enforcing the sentence for serious sexual offences against a child.

The defendants brought motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The plaintiff, a former Complaints and Appeals Officer for a national sports organization, sued the defendants over emails they sent criticizing his handling of complaints and his suitability for the role.

The court found that the defendants' expressions related to a matter of public interest regarding athlete safety.

While the defamation claim had substantial merit, the plaintiff failed to show that the defendants lacked valid defences, such as justification and qualified privilege.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of serious harm caused by the expressions that would outweigh the public interest in protecting them.

The motions were granted and the action was dismissed.

The defendants, a law firm and its lawyers, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a $20 million action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence brought by their former clients.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired with the opposing party in a prior wrongful dismissal action and negligently advised them, leading to an improvident settlement.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial.

It held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a conflict of interest or professional negligence, and that the settlement was not improvident given the risks of continued litigation.

The case involved a dispute between brothers Domenic, Salvatore, and Bruno Rosso, and their wives, concerning minutes of settlement.

Bruno moved to enforce the minutes, alleging Domenic breached them.

Domenic cross-moved to set aside the minutes, claiming duress, fraudulent misrepresentation, or improvidence, and also arguing they were null and void under a specific contractual clause.

The court found that Domenic and Carmelina (Domenic's wife and a "Settling Party") validly exercised their contractual right under the minutes of settlement to declare them null and void due to an uncured default.

The court dismissed Bruno's motion to enforce and granted Domenic's cross-motion to set aside the minutes of settlement on this contractual basis, rejecting Domenic's other claims of duress, misrepresentation, and improvidence due to lack of credible evidence.

The appellant, Leonidas Economopoulos, appealed his convictions for drug offences and possession of proceeds of crime, arguing that the affidavit used to obtain a search warrant for his home and car was insufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds.

The trial judge had found the affidavit sufficient, despite noted deficiencies, to conclude there were reasonable and probable grounds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, deferring to his review and agreeing that the affidavit met the legal test for ex parte authorizations, as articulated in R. v. Araujo.

The Court also rejected the argument that the trial judge improperly used cross-examination evidence to amplify the grounds for identification.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Sharna Gayle, brought a motion to amend her Amended Statement of Claim in a solicitor's negligence action against Lerners LLP and its lawyers.

The proposed amendments sought to increase the damages claimed from $1,000,000 to $20,000,000 and to add extensive particulars detailing the alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, including allegations of conflict of interest due to "religious and personal affiliations." The court granted the amendment to increase the damages, affirming that such an increase does not constitute prejudice.

However, the court dismissed the motion to add the detailed particulars, finding that these proposed amendments violated Rule 25.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure by pleading evidence, explanations, and submissions rather than concise material facts.

The court also found that the proposed amendments did not introduce a new cause of action and that the delay in seeking amendments was not excessive enough to presume non-compensable prejudice.