Pamela Miehls

During a trial concerning ownership of residential property and whether a resulting or constructive trust existed in favour of an estate, the plaintiff brought a mid‑trial motion seeking production of the deceased’s wills.

The court considered the principles of relevance and admissibility under the Rules of Civil Procedure and common law evidence authorities.

The wills were found to be potentially relevant to the intent of the deceased regarding the property at issue.

The court rejected arguments that family conflict created undue prejudice and held any risk could be controlled in a judge‑alone trial through appropriate weight.

Production of the wills was ordered subject to a confidentiality order sealing them from the public record.

The mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage and dismiss the borrowers’ claims that the debt had been discharged.

The borrowers asserted that they had paid the mortgage using purported electronic fund transfer instruments or bills of exchange marked “Not For Deposit” and “Without Recourse.” The court found that the documents were drawn on a closed bank account and that there was no evidence of actual payment.

Concluding that the borrowers failed to provide evidence establishing any genuine issue requiring a trial, the court held that the instruments were worthless and did not constitute payment of the mortgage debt.

Summary judgment was granted to the mortgagee and the borrowers’ claims were dismissed.

Two applicants sought judicial review of municipal by-laws implementing a volume-based solid waste user fee and associated rebate program introduced by the City of Toronto.

The applicants argued that the waste collection charge was in substance an unlawful tax affecting provincial tax ratio rules and that the rebate constituted an impermissible redistribution of property taxes contrary to the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The court held that the waste charge was a valid user fee because a sufficient nexus existed between the amount collected and the cost of providing waste services.

The court further held that the rebate was properly characterized as a municipal grant authorized under s. 83 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 rather than a tax rebate.

The applications to quash the relevant by-law provisions were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion in Toronto for leave to appeal an interlocutory order made in Milton (Central West Region).

The court raised a preliminary issue regarding whether the motion was properly returnable in Toronto.

After reviewing the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court determined that a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court must be filed and heard in the region where the appeal is to be heard, which in this case was the Central West Region.

The court ordered the motion transferred to the Central West Region.