Owen Rees

The defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for the sale of a jointly-held cottage under the Partition Act and dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff alleged two oral contracts — one to refrain from selling the cottage before 2033 and another regarding a time-sharing schedule — as well as tortious interference with his use and enjoyment of the property.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence of oral agreements unpersuasive and unsupported, held that no action in nuisance could lie between joint tenants on jointly-held land, and determined that the alleged interferences were trivial.

Summary judgment was granted directing the sale of the cottage, the plaintiff's action was dismissed, and partial indemnity costs of $49,420.35 were awarded to the moving party.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault against his former spouse, including two counts alleged to have occurred entirely in Alberta and Quebec.

At the outset of the trial, the defence brought an application to quash or dismiss those two counts for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The Crown argued there was a real and substantial connection to Ontario based on the ongoing relationship, cross-count assaults, and the psychological effects suffered by the complainant in Ontario.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments, finding no elements of the offences occurred in Ontario and the effects-based analysis did not apply.

The two out-of-province counts were stayed for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs moved for a status hearing to extend the deadline to set their complex construction action down for trial.

The defendant DeMarco Construction opposed, arguing the delay was inexcusable and caused prejudice due to the death of its primary witness.

The court found the plaintiffs provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, citing health issues and difficulties scheduling mediation.

The court also held that the prejudice from the witness's death was not attributable to the plaintiffs' delay and was attenuated by the availability of discovery transcripts and documentary evidence.

The motion to extend the deadline was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal had concluded that his transitory ankle injury was not a disability under the Human Rights Code and applied a balance of probabilities standard to its jurisdictional screening.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal engaged in an impermissible merits review rather than a jurisdictional analysis.

The court held it was unreasonable for the Tribunal to depart from the 'plain and obvious' standard for jurisdictional screening and to fail to apply a multidimensional, socio-political analysis to the definition of disability.

Following the dismissal of two dependent's relief applications against an insolvent estate, the court determined the costs payable by the unsuccessful applicants.

The court allocated the estate's costs between the two applications.

Joanne Sebanc was ordered to pay $14,000 on a partial indemnity basis, recognizing her mixed success and limited ability to pay.

Roseanne, Daniel, and Natalie Sebanc were ordered to pay $30,000 on a substantial indemnity basis because they pursued baseless allegations of fraud and failed to accept a favourable offer to settle.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for an interlocutory injunction due to a lack of legal capacity to sue, the responding First Nation sought costs of $40,510.34 on a partial indemnity basis.

The individual who brought the proceeding on behalf of the applicant accepted personal liability for costs but argued the quantum was excessive.

The court found the hours claimed by the responding First Nation were disproportionate to the complexity of the issues, which were primarily procedural.

The court fixed costs at $18,000 all inclusive, payable by the individual personally.

Le requérant a demandé des ordonnances de conformité en vertu de l’article 134 de la Loi de 1998 sur les condominiums concernant des locations à court terme, une caméra installée sans autorisation sur un élément commun, et des comportements allégués comme harcelants et nuisibles à la jouissance paisible.

Le tribunal a conclu à des violations répétées des règles et du règlement sur les locations à court terme, ainsi qu’à une contravention de l’article 98 pour la caméra.

Le tribunal a aussi conclu à des comportements harcelants et à des actes nuisant au confort et à la jouissance paisible des autres copropriétaires.

Une ordonnance a été signée avec modifications et des dépens partiels de 18 000 $ ont été accordés au requérant.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to one of the responding parties.

The appellant pharmacist appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of sexually abusing a patient who was also his coworker.

The appellant argued the Committee erred in finding the coworker was a 'patient' under the Patient Criteria Regulation, asserting that dispensing a prescription did not constitute a 'direct interaction'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the determination of whether a patient relationship existed was a question of mixed fact and law subject to deference.

The Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's conclusion that dispensing a prescription and conducting a clinical verification constituted a direct interaction creating a pharmacist-patient relationship.

The applicants sought to challenge Tarion Warranty Corporation's decision requiring security for potential 7-year warranty claims.

The applicants' registration had previously been revoked by a Consent Order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that Tarion's concern about the risk of major claims was justified and its discretion was exercised reasonably.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the agreed amount of $22,319.98.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order transferring a matter from the Family Law Team to the Civil Law Team in Toronto.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was good reason to doubt the motion judge's finding on jurisdiction, the decision to have the matter addressed by the Civil Law Team was an exercise of administrative discretion that did not raise a matter of such importance to warrant leave to appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision and a costs decision of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in all respects and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of two determinations made by an adjudicator.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant sought a divorce, parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and ongoing and retroactive child support for their seven-year-old child.

The parties were married in 2016 and separated in 2017.

The applicant has been the primary caregiver since the child's birth in Ontario, while the respondent initially remained in Quebec and later relocated to Texas.

The court granted the applicant's application, awarding sole decision-making responsibility to the applicant, parenting time to the respondent consisting of weekly virtual calls and monthly in-person visits within Ontario, and retroactive and ongoing child support based on imputed income for periods of intentional underemployment and the respondent's current earnings.

The accused was charged with six counts of sexual abuse against a child complainant: two counts of invitation to sexual touching, two counts of sexual interference, and two counts of sexual assault.

The Crown alleged that the accused, who was in a relationship with the complainant's mother and living in the home, sexually abused the child on multiple occasions in the bathroom and principal bedroom when the mother was at work.

The accused denied all allegations.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and reliable on the core elements of the abuse, rejected the accused's evidence as not credible, and found that DNA evidence (semen on the complainant's underwear) corroborated the complainant's account.

The accused was found guilty on all six counts.

A building supplies distributor brought a motion for summary judgment against a construction contractor and its directors for unpaid invoices totalling approximately $254,393.30 (including interest).

The contractor disputed the amount owing and raised a set-off for work performed on an unrelated project.

The court found the action suitable for summary judgment and granted it to the plaintiff.

The court held that the contractor was required to apply payments as allocated by the plaintiff, not as the supplier attempted to reallocate them.

The court also found the contractor liable for breach of statutory trust obligations under the Construction Act for failing to maintain separate trust accounts and for failing to provide an accounting of trust funds.

The directors were found jointly and severally liable for the breach of trust.

The court awarded damages to be calculated in accordance with its reasons and fixed costs at $30,000 inclusive of HST.

La décision porte sur une demande d’annulation d’une sentence arbitrale concernant l’interprétation et l’exécution d’un contrat verbal relatif à la répartition de lots dans le cadre du Projet Oasis.

La Cour conclut que l’arbitre a commis des erreurs de droit en annulant une ordonnance de la Cour supérieure et en liant une société non partie à l’arbitrage, mais que ces erreurs n’affectent pas le résultat.

La Cour confirme que la détention d’une licence Tarion/HCRA est une condition implicite du contrat et que le droit d’acheter les lots appartient à Maisons Lacroix, non à la requérante.

The applicant builder sought judicial review of a decision by the warranty corporation requiring it to pay $45,688.71 for a retaining wall.

The corporation had initially determined the retaining wall was not a warranted defect, but later reversed its position based on new submissions from the homeowner, without providing the applicant notice or an opportunity to respond.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the corporation breached procedural fairness.

The impugned finding was quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh decision following a fair process.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision dismissing her request to reconsider an interim suspension of her certificate of registration.

The suspension was imposed after the applicant allegedly provided COVID-19 vaccine exemptions without medical justification and refused to cooperate with College investigators.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that challenges to the appointment of investigators were premature and that the ICRC's decision to maintain the suspension was reasonable given the applicant's ongoing failure to cooperate and the resulting risk of harm to patients.