Patrick Hurley

The plaintiff estate brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of an alleged debt of $536,294.74 based on a promissory note signed by the defendant and the deceased.

The defendant disputed the amount owed, arguing the note was only an estimate and that he had repaid most of the money.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence, including an affidavit from the parties' accountant, raised genuine issues of credibility and fact that required a trial.

No costs were awarded as the successful defendant failed to file a costs outline.

Self-represented plaintiffs commenced an action in 2022 alleging that their investment advisor misappropriated inheritance funds deposited into a brokerage account in 2005.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment asserting no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the action was statute-barred.

The court found that the plaintiffs had documentary evidence of the account and its transactions in 2004 and 2005, and that they necessarily would have discovered the alleged loss of funds by 2014 when they closed all accounts with the defendants.

The court held that the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 had expired well before the action was commenced in 2022.

The court further held that the plaintiffs' claim of misappropriation was unsupported by evidence and rested on conjecture, including a forensic document examiner's report given no weight for failing to comply with affidavit requirements.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for damages arising from a sexual assault that occurred on December 4, 2017.

The defendant was convicted of the offence in February 2023 and sentenced to six years imprisonment.

The plaintiff claimed general and aggravated damages for sexual assault and battery, breach of privacy, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and pecuniary damages including loss of competitive advantage and future care costs.

The defendant did not file responding affidavit material and the parties agreed the case was suitable for summary judgment.

The court found the plaintiff entitled to damages and assessed general and aggravated damages at $225,000, loss of competitive advantage at $25,000, future care costs at $7,500, and an OHIP subrogated claim of $687.

The court also awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the applicant's application and the granting of the counter-application.

The court assessed costs on a partial indemnity basis, considering the complexity of the proceeding, the importance of the issues, the parties' conduct, and a Rule 49 settlement offer.

The applicant's unreasonable conduct in including an unnecessary party and taking an untenable position regarding the property value influenced the costs award.

The court rejected the applicant's proposed costs as arbitrary and unreasonable.

The plaintiff, an inmate at Bath Institution, brought an action against the Attorney General of Canada after slipping and falling on prison premises.

The defendant admitted it owed a duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and the parties agreed on the quantum of damages.

The trial proceeded solely on the issues of liability and contributory negligence.

The court heard testimony from several witnesses regarding the condition of the area, the cause of the fall, and the prison's inspection and maintenance systems.

This decision concerns a dispute over the ownership of a commercial property and business shares following the death of John Morrison.

The applicant, Nancy Morrison (as estate trustee), sought partition and sale of the property, while the respondent, Tomasz Gadomski, claimed he had purchased the estate’s interest in both the property and the business under a 2016 Share Purchase Agreement (SPA).

The court found that the parties intended a single agreement covering both the shares and the property, and that Gadomski had fulfilled his obligations.

The application for partition and sale was dismissed, and Gadomski was declared the sole owner of the property.

This decision concerns a failed real estate transaction and a motion for summary judgment under the simplified procedure.

The plaintiffs, Robert Wayne Colley and Mary Jean Colley, sought damages after the defendant, Zekiye Yousuf Hammoe, failed to close on the purchase of their property.

The court found that there were irreconcilable factual disputes regarding who requested an extension of the closing date and whether both parties signed an amendment.

The court also found the record insufficient to fairly assess damages, particularly regarding mitigation efforts.

As a result, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to a summary trial.

This is a sentencing decision for Jeffrey Smith, a police officer, who was found guilty of assault (a lesser included offence of assault causing bodily harm).

The court considered the circumstances of the offence, the impact on the victim (an Indigenous individual), and the offender's background, including his exemplary character and lack of prior disciplinary history.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of 30-60 days, while the defence proposed a conditional discharge.

The court emphasized the heightened principles of denunciation and general deterrence for police officers, but also the individualized nature of sentencing and the importance of proportionality.

The judge found that Smith acted in good faith, believing he had grounds for arrest, and the force used was not excessive, though unlawful.

Considering mitigating factors such as his good character, lack of criminal record, and collateral consequences, the court granted a conditional discharge with a 12-month probation order, including community service and a non-communication term with the victim.

The plaintiff, widow of the deceased, challenged the validity of her late husband's will, sought an equalization payment under the Family Law Act, and dependant support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The defendant, the deceased's daughter and estate trustee, defended the will's validity and disputed the equalization and support claims.

The court found the will valid, dismissed the support claim, and provided findings for the calculation of the equalization payment, leaving the final amount for the parties to agree upon.

Police officers Paul Fyke and Jeffrey Smith were jointly charged with assault causing bodily harm following an altercation with Mario Maurice Baptiste Jr. during an attempted arrest for theft.

The court found that Constable Smith's initial arrest for theft lacked reasonable and probable grounds, making his use of force unlawful.

However, Constable Fyke's subsequent involvement was justified as he had reasonable grounds to arrest Mr. Baptiste for assaulting a peace officer or resisting arrest.

The court acquitted Constable Fyke, finding the Crown failed to prove his force was excessive.

Constable Smith was acquitted of assault causing bodily harm but found guilty of the lesser included offence of assault, as the Crown failed to prove his force caused the specific bodily harm alleged.

The plaintiff landlord sued its insurer for breach of contract and bad faith after the insurer refused to pay for storm damage repairs and asbestos remediation unless the plaintiff evicted all tenants from the building.

The plaintiff incurred significant costs attempting to evict the tenants through the Landlord and Tenant Board before eventually selling the building 'as is'.

The insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding whether the insurer breached its duty of good faith by insisting on a vacant building and whether the policy's exclusion clauses applied to the eviction costs.

The applicants sought to set aside three arbitral awards under s. 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, alleging procedural unfairness regarding damages quantification and witness exclusion.

The respondents sought to enforce the awards.

The court dismissed the applicants' motion, affirming the narrow scope of judicial review for arbitral awards under s. 46, which focuses on procedural fairness rather than substantive errors.

The court found the arbitrator's reasons adequate and that the applicants were treated fairly, despite their disagreement with the arbitrator's evidentiary and damages assessment decisions.

The plaintiff's home was destroyed by fire.

The insurer paid the policy limits for the building and an advance for the contents.

The plaintiff sued the insurer in negligence, claiming the property was underinsured and seeking additional damages for both the building and contents.

The court dismissed the negligence claim, finding the insurer owed no duty of care regarding the replacement cost calculation, as the plaintiff relied solely on his broker.

The court also found the plaintiff was not entitled to replacement cost value for the building because he chose not to rebuild.

However, the court granted relief from forfeiture regarding the plaintiff's failure to submit a sworn proof of loss for the contents claim, finding the insurer had waived the requirement.

The court assessed the actual cash value of the contents and awarded the plaintiff an additional $51,000.

The applicants, owners of adjacent waterfront cottages, sought a declaration of communal adverse possession over a parcel of land separating their properties from the Ottawa River.

The disputed land had been purchased by the respondents following a municipal tax sale.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that Ontario law does not recognize a communal claim for adverse possession where the claimants only used discrete portions of the land rather than possessing the whole in common.

The court also rejected the applicants' challenge to the respondents' legal title, finding the paralegal's affidavit on title issues inadmissible as expert opinion.

The accused was charged with manslaughter, assault causing bodily harm, and breach of probation following the death of his father.

The father, who had severe coronary disease, died of a sudden cardiac event shortly after a brief physical altercation with the accused.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the altercation was a significant contributing cause of death, as the medical evidence indicated the father could have died at any time from his condition.

The court also found the Crown failed to prove the absence of consent for the assault charge.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The plaintiffs sought damages arising from a catastrophic ATV crash involving an inexperienced adult rider on an unlit rural road with a sharp curve.

The court held that all defendants owed a prima facie duty of care, but only the boyfriend who had instructed and accompanied the rider breached the standard of care by allowing her to ride alone without adequate training, without a helmet, and toward a dangerous curve he knew she could not safely negotiate.

Applying the but for causation test, the court inferred from circumstantial and expert evidence that the accident was caused by the rider's inability to properly turn the ATV.

The claims against the owner and his spouse were dismissed, statutory owner liability was rejected, and contributory negligence was fixed at 10%.

The accused was charged with conspiracy, break and enter, and possession of stolen property relating to the theft of copper plates from railway boxcars.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of two unsavoury accomplices, cellphone tower data, and similar fact evidence from a prior conviction.

The court found the accomplice testimony contradictory regarding the accused's involvement in the break and enters, resulting in acquittals on those charges.

However, the court found the cellphone data and similar fact evidence sufficiently confirmed the accomplices' testimony regarding the accused's assistance in loading the stolen copper, resulting in a conviction for possession of stolen property.

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRAO) applied for an order under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to declare Mohan Joy Kurian a vexatious litigant and prohibit him from commencing further proceedings without leave.

The application stemmed from Kurian's six-year campaign of persistent, groundless litigation and complaints against his former credit union, Alterna Savings and Credit Union/Quintefirst Credit Union (Intervenor), and FSRAO, including multiple dismissed lawsuits and unpaid costs.

The court found Kurian's conduct to be vexatious, marked by abuse of process, harassment, and disrespect for the administration of justice, and granted the order, with the exception of one ongoing action against a former business partner.

Costs were awarded to FSRAO and Alterna.

The plaintiff, Lisa Spry, brought a motion to add Dr. James Shin as a defendant in her medical malpractice claim, relying on the doctrine of misnomer or, alternatively, arguing the motion was brought before the expiry of the limitation period.

Dr. Shin opposed, contending it was not a misnomer and the claim was statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding it was a case of misnomer because the plaintiff intended to sue all negligent healthcare professionals and the error in not naming Dr. Shin initially was unintentional and understandable given the records.

The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to Dr. Shin.

Alternatively, the court determined the limitation period began when Dr. Mak's statement of defence revealed another physician took over care, making the motion timely.

The applicants, operators of a restaurant, brought a constitutional challenge against the Reopening Ontario Act and its Step 3 Regulation, specifically targeting the masking and proof of vaccination requirements.

They argued these measures infringed their rights under sections 2, 7, 8, and 15 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, finding no infringement of the Charter rights, as the Charter does not protect purely economic interests or the right to operate a business free of regulation.

The court further held that even if there were an infringement, the public health measures were justified under section 1 of the Charter.