Orlando M. Rosa

The plaintiff Beechhill Capital Corp. brought a motion for summary judgment on a promissory note in the amount of $1,372,230.00 issued by the defendants.

The defendants acknowledged the debt but raised defences including lack of consideration, statute of limitations, oppression claims, and misrepresentation regarding the value of pledged HEXO shares.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding that the defences lacked merit.

The court determined that valuable consideration existed through antecedent debt and forbearance, the limitation period had not expired as the note was renewed, oppression was not a valid defence to a promissory note, and the alleged misrepresentations could not have induced the defendants to sign the note since the debt predated the note and the defendants had knowledge of the share dispositions.

The plaintiffs sold their business, Tracks & Wheels Equipment Brokers Inc., to the defendants.

Disputes arose regarding options to purchase the lands on which the business operated, post-closing adjustments, and the conduct of the parties' shared accountant.

The court found that the accountant breached professional and contractual duties by acting in a conflict of interest.

The court also held that the defendants' counterclaim for post-closing adjustments was not time-barred.

Specific performance was granted to the defendants for the optioned lands, subject to certain severance conditions.

The Township of Evanturel brought a motion challenging the Ontario Land Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear an application by the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (ONTC) regarding the apportionment of maintenance costs for three railway crossings.

The Township argued there was no underlying statute, order, or agreement granting jurisdiction.

The ONTC argued that agreements existed and requested the striking of an affidavit sworn by the Township's lawyer.

The Tribunal struck the lawyer's affidavit as impermissible legal argument and dismissed the jurisdictional motion, finding that the factual dispute over the existence of cost-sharing agreements required a full hearing.

The moving defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs argued the settlement lacked certainty and that the court should exercise its discretion not to enforce it, particularly because one plaintiff was a party under disability.

The court found that an objective reading of the communications between counsel established a binding agreement to settle.

The court also found the settlement was in the best interests of the party under disability and declined to exercise its discretion to set aside the agreement, noting the plaintiffs' remedy for any alleged bad advice lay against their former counsel.

The motion to enforce the settlement was granted.

The appellant land developer brought a $6 million breach of contract action against a not-for-profit environmental association and its members, alleging that the association's president had breached a settlement agreement by testifying before the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the ecological impact of the appellant's proposed subdivision development.

The respondents brought a pre-trial motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondents met the threshold burden under s. 137.1(3) and that the appellant failed to satisfy either the merits-based hurdle under s. 137.1(4)(a) or the public interest weighing exercise under s. 137.1(4)(b).

The Court provided comprehensive guidance on the proper interpretation and application of Ontario's anti-SLAPP framework, clarifying the standards of 'satisfies,' 'arises from,' 'substantial merit,' and the public interest weighing exercise.

The decision affirms that freedom of expression and public participation in democratic processes are fundamental values that the anti-SLAPP legislation was enacted to protect.

The plaintiff, Tracks & Wheels Equipment Brokers Inc., sought summary judgment for specific performance of options to purchase real property.

The defendant, KKP Investments Inc., brought a cross-motion to dismiss or stay the action as an abuse of process and for payment of rent.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment due to the risk of duplicative or inconsistent findings with a related "Main Action" and because it was not advisable in the context of the litigation as a whole.

The defendant's motion to dismiss or stay was also dismissed, as the court found the plaintiff's new action was a matter of form over substance given prior settlement attempts.

The defendant's request for interim rent was withdrawn.

Both actions were ordered to be tried together.

The Plaintiff, Algoma District School Board (ADSB), brought a motion for partial summary judgment against the Defendant, Algoma Insurance Brokers Ltd. (AIB), alleging negligence and breach of contract in insurance brokerage services from 1965-1986.

AIB brought a cross-motion for dismissal of ADSB's claim for delay.

The court dismissed ADSB's motion for partial summary judgment, finding it inappropriate given the complexity and lack of efficiency.

The court granted AIB's motion to dismiss for delay, concluding that the 13.5-year delay was inordinate and inexcusable, and ADSB failed to rebut the strong presumption of prejudice to AIB, particularly concerning the fading memories of elderly witnesses and the death of key individuals.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his action as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action named numerous defendants including government entities, corporations, and political parties, alleging perceived personal wrongs.

The motion judge found the statement of claim contained nonsensical allegations that disclosed no cause of action against any defendant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding both the underlying action and the notice of appeal to be frivolous and vexatious, as the appeal grounds merely reiterated the same problematic allegations from the statement of claim without demonstrating any merit.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking the release of $500,000 held in escrow following a share purchase agreement.

The defendants brought cross-motions seeking an interpleader order and a portion of the funds for uncollectible accounts receivable.

The court granted the plaintiffs leave to bring their motion after setting the action down for trial, finding it was an efficient step.

The court held that partial summary judgment was appropriate as the issue could be resolved on uncontested facts.

The court found that the defendants failed to provide the required notice under the escrow agreement, entitling the plaintiffs to the return of the full escrow amount plus interest.

The plaintiff, Priddle-Luck Professional Corporation, brought a motion for an interim interim interlocutory injunction seeking mandatory orders for the return of client information and disclosure of communications, and prohibitory injunctions against using goodwill/client lists and soliciting clients.

The motion arose from the sale of an accounting practice and subsequent competition.

The court applied the three-part test from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v Canada (serious issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) and noted the exceptional nature of mandatory and interlocutory injunctions.

The court found that the test had not been met at this preliminary stage due to significant divergence in evidence requiring further exploration.

Consequently, the motion was dismissed, and costs were reserved.

The successful respondent on a motion for leave to appeal an OMB decision sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, or alternatively, partial indemnity costs.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs, finding the appellants' conduct did not warrant an elevated scale.

However, the court rejected the appellants' argument that costs should be limited to a standard $3,500, noting the appellants had raised 34 errors of law.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $20,858.67 to the respondent.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff railway company's action for unpaid invoices relating to railway crossing upgrades.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claim was barred by issue estoppel and res judicata, as a prior arbitration award between the same parties had already determined that the plaintiff made a material misrepresentation by failing to disclose that federal funding would not cover certain overhead charges.

The court agreed, finding that the issues in the current action were identical to those decided in the arbitration, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim as there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, which had dismissed their appeal from a city council decision denying their proposed 91-lot residential development in a coastal wetland area.

The applicants alleged numerous errors of law, including the Board's application of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement instead of the 2005 version, its interpretation of 'negative impacts' and 'limited residential development', and procedural fairness issues regarding the admission of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the 2014 PPS, reasonably interpreted the planning policies, and that any procedural errors regarding expert evidence did not meet the test for granting leave.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for breach of a settlement agreement, invoking Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

The court found that the defendants' expression (testimony at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding a land development's environmental impact) related to a matter of public interest, thereby satisfying the first part of the anti-SLAPP test.

However, the plaintiff successfully demonstrated that their action had substantial merit, the defendants had no valid defence, and the public interest in upholding the sanctity and finality of settlement agreements in litigation outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs, given the novelty and merit of the anti-SLAPP motion.

The applicant, a motor vehicle dealer, brought a motion for relief under section 11(b) and section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that its right to be tried within a reasonable time had been breached.

The applicant was charged with two offences under the Motor Vehicles Dealers Act, 2002 for allegedly failing to ensure advertisements complied with the Act.

The motion was heard on May 21, 2014, and decision was rendered on September 12, 2014.

The court applied the four-factor test from R. v. Askov to assess the delay claim.

While the court found that the total delay of approximately 47 months from the alleged offence to the motion was prima facie excessive, and that approximately 28 months of that delay was attributable to institutional limitations and Crown conduct, the court concluded that the applicant had not established irremedial prejudice to its fair trial interests.

The court dismissed the motion and directed that the trial proceed on its merits.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s action, the successful defendant sought costs including substantial indemnity costs after a rejected settlement offer under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court considered the interaction of Rules 49.10, 49.13, and 57.01 and the jurisprudence governing elevated cost awards.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs require reprehensible or egregious conduct unless specifically triggered by Rule 49.10, which did not apply where the plaintiff obtained no judgment.

As there was no misconduct by the plaintiff, elevated costs were not warranted.

The court nevertheless awarded the successful defendant partial indemnity costs in a reduced amount reflecting fairness and reasonable expectations.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action after the trial judge held that he failed to mitigate his damages by refusing an offer to return to the same position, at the same location, salary, duties, and benefits, shortly after a constructive dismissal.

The appeal argued that the trial judge misapplied the governing mitigation principles and wrongly found no workplace acrimony sufficient to make re-employment unreasonable.

The court held that the trial judge properly applied the framework from the leading Supreme Court authorities, made factual and credibility findings open on the record, and reasonably concluded that a reasonable person would have accepted the return-to-work offer.

The appeal was dismissed and appeal costs were fixed in favour of the respondent.

The appellants appealed a decision setting aside a stay of proceedings granted by a Justice of the Peace.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the officer's conduct might have justified a finding of abuse of process, a stay of proceedings was not the only remedy available.

The court emphasized that a stay is a prospective remedy of last resort, and lesser remedies, such as disregarding the officer's testimony or addressing disclosure issues, were sufficient to remove any prejudice.

Following a personal injury trial in which the plaintiff succeeded and obtained damages exceeding pre‑trial settlement offers, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court considered the costs discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the cost consequences relating to Rule 76 simplified procedure.

Although the damages awarded were within the simplified procedure monetary threshold, the court found it was reasonable for the plaintiff to proceed under the ordinary procedure given the seriousness of the injuries, the defendant’s firm denial of liability, and the procedural complexity including a jury trial that was later discharged.

The court held that Rule 76 should not deprive the plaintiff of costs and that the plaintiff’s favourable settlement offers justified partial indemnity costs before the first offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Costs were fixed at $84,100 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff brought a negligence action after suffering a fractured shoulder in a fall at a restaurant step leading into a private party room.

The court considered the occupier’s duty of care under s. 3(1) of the Occupier’s Liability Act and whether the restaurant took reasonable steps to ensure patrons were safe.

Evidence showed staff failed to follow established protocols for escorting guests and warning them about the step, and the step lacked illumination or other safety features.

The court found the warning sign inadequate and concluded the occupier breached its statutory duty.

However, the plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for failing to watch where she was walking as she approached the step.

General damages of $50,000 and limited special damages were awarded, reduced by contributory negligence.