Peter A. Daley

The Toronto Police Service (TPS) denied Yazdan Khorsand's application for special constable employment with the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) based on a pre-screening background check, without disclosing reasons or information.

Khorsand sought judicial review, arguing a breach of procedural fairness and systemic discrimination.

The Divisional Court found the decision judicially reviewable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed this, holding that the pre-screening decision was part of a private employment hiring process by the TCHC, not a sufficiently public exercise of state authority by the TPS Board, and therefore not amenable to judicial review.

The court emphasized that the broad public impact of a decision does not automatically make it judicially reviewable and that public law remedies were unsuitable given the need to protect sensitive law enforcement information.

This appeal arose from two actions tried together concerning breaches of a license agreement and fiduciary duties related to powder-coating business ventures.

The trial judge found that Robert Langlois breached a License Agreement and fiduciary duties to the "ACS plaintiffs" (7868073 Canada Ltd. et al.), with Jeffrey Sugar and Gary Sugar knowingly assisting.

Profits were disgorged to the ACS plaintiffs, and a separate action by Gary Sugar was dismissed as moot.

The appellants (Gary Sugar and the "Langlois appellants") challenged the trial judge's findings on the License Agreement's validity and termination, the existence and continuation of fiduciary duties, and the misappropriation of corporate opportunities.

The ACS plaintiffs cross-appealed the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals and denied leave to cross-appeal costs, affirming the trial judge's conclusions that the License Agreement was valid and not terminated, that fiduciary duties continued, and that corporate opportunities were misappropriated.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted to TD Bank on a loan and guarantees.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred by allowing a non-party to testify in a mini-trial, making findings of fact relevant to a third-party claim, and granting summary judgment before the third-party claim was determined.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's exercise of enhanced powers under Rule 20.04(2.2) or in granting summary judgment, as the third-party claim was separate and the appellants had opportunities to join it.

The plaintiff mortgagee sought payment of a second mortgage balance, leading to a court-ordered reference to determine the outstanding amount.

The court dismissed the reference, finding that the dispute involved complex issues of law and fact, including other alleged debts and investments, which went far beyond the scope of a simple accounting reference as defined by the original order and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to expand the reference, stating that such complex matters required a full trial for proper adjudication.

The plaintiff, A.J. Lanzarotta Wholesale Fruits & Vegetables Ltd., sought judgment against the defendants (United Farmers, 2773125 Ontario Inc., Janet Michelle Brunton, and Wayne D. King) in an uncontested trial after their statement of defence was struck.

The action was grounded in fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit related to the defendants' scheme to obtain large quantities of food products on credit.

The court found the defendants liable for civil fraud, pierced the corporate veil to hold the individual defendants personally liable, and awarded compensatory damages for the cost of goods sold and various consequential losses, but not lost profits.

Punitive damages were also awarded against the individual defendants, and the judgment was declared to survive bankruptcy.

The appellant challenged a trial judge's order for retroactive non-compensatory spousal support and determinations regarding the matrimonial home, including ownership, expenses, and occupancy rent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the respondent was financially dependent on the appellant, that the retroactive support was notionally rather than actually paid due to prior expense contributions, and that the presumption of joint tenancy for the matrimonial home was not rebutted.

The court emphasized deference to the trial judge's factual findings and discretionary decisions in family law matters.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the appellant’s action arising from a motor vehicle accident, following a jury’s verdict.

The appellant claimed the trial judge erred by not permitting the jury to deliberate on future income loss and housekeeping expenses, and by refusing expert testimony on these costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury's undisputed finding of no causation rendered the rulings on damages irrelevant.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for production of documents from Aviva Insurance Company, the statutory third-party insurer of one of the defendants, and sought answers to refused discovery questions.

The core issue was the disclosure of records related to Aviva's investigation of a motor vehicle accident and its off-coverage position based on alleged policy violations.

The court reviewed the documents in camera, considering claims of litigation and solicitor-client privilege.

The motion was granted, ordering the production of documents as detailed in an attached schedule, and granting leave for further discovery on the disclosed information and material facts from privileged documents.

The defendant brought a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) registered by the plaintiff municipality on her property.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's former husband, while employed by the municipality, defrauded it of approximately $23 million and used the stolen funds to extensively renovate the property.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case for a proprietary interest in the property through equitable tracing, and that the defendant failed to satisfy the factors required to discharge a CPL under section 103(6) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims in fraud and deceit, the defendants sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the plaintiffs had made unsupported allegations of fraud against the defendants on an inadequate evidentiary record, warranting cost sanctions.

The court awarded the defendants costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $246,213.93.

The court declined to award costs against the plaintiffs' counsel personally.

The plaintiffs brought an ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendants, alleging they were defrauded of substantial sums of money through fraudulent conduct and misrepresentations regarding mortgage investments, a property development project, and a family trust.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of a premeditated fraudulent scheme, irreparable harm, and a serious risk of asset dissipation, particularly given the individual defendant's prior regulatory sanctions for fraudulent conduct.

The motion for a Mareva injunction was granted.

The plaintiffs, Tajammul Hussain Rana and Premier Technical Consultant Ltd., brought an action alleging various causes of action, ultimately narrowing their claims to the intentional torts of fraud and deceit against Mohammad Zakir Ramzan and 2182224 Ontario Inc. operating as FHS Zoom.

The plaintiffs claimed they were induced to invest $500,000 in a non-party company, ET Zone Supplies Inc., based on Ramzan's alleged false representations, including his purported role as "Head of Investment Division" of ET Zone.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary elements of civil fraud or deceit on a balance of probabilities.

The court concluded there was no material false representation by Ramzan that caused the plaintiffs' loss, and any initial misrepresentation was neutralized by the plaintiff's awareness of ET Zone's true principal.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, Dung Truong and Thuan Nguyen, sued their insurer for payment of six pieces of jewellery allegedly stolen in Vietnam.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership, the theft occurred, or the value of the loss, and that the jewellery was contraband.

The court found that the insurance contract did not require re-proving ownership post-loss, and that the plaintiffs had an insurable interest.

The court also found the theft occurred as described and rejected the "contraband" defence.

The court awarded the plaintiffs the insured value of the jewellery and punitive damages, finding the insurer's denial based on an unreasonable interpretation of the contract constituted bad faith.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a divorce order regarding parenting time and child support.

The respondent mother filed a cross-motion seeking similar relief and other orders.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent's permanent relocation to British Columbia, rendering the previous 50/50 parenting schedule unworkable.

The applicant's motion was granted, establishing primary residence with him, ordering the respondent to pay child support based on imputed income, and dispensing with the respondent's consent for the children's surname change.

The respondent's cross-motion was dismissed, including requests for Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement or a Voice of the Child report, and recalculation of her child support.

The applicant mother sought to be appointed guardian of property for her minor son in relation to an ongoing civil action.

The court dismissed the application as premature because the underlying action had not yet resulted in a judgment or settlement, meaning the minor currently owned no property.

The court noted that a guardianship application should be brought concurrently with a motion for settlement approval once funds are actually awarded.

The applicant, Roy D'Mello, brought two applications characterized by the court as an unrelenting campaign of stonewalling and delay, weaponizing the Rules of Civil Procedure, and constituting collateral attacks on prior judicial decisions.

The respondent, Chris Jamie Sapusak, brought motions to dismiss these applications.

The court incorporated its earlier reasons for dismissing similar applications against other respondents.

The court found D'Mello's applications disclosed no reasonable cause of action, could not succeed, were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and were not authorized under Rule 14.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motions to dismiss D'Mello's applications were granted without leave to amend.

The plaintiff, a not-for-profit organization, moved for default judgment against two defendants, Darren Pennock (former Executive Director) and Nancie Parker, whose statements of defence were struck.

The plaintiff alleged Pennock committed extensive fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by misappropriating funds, and that Parker was liable for knowing assistance, willful blindness, and unjust enrichment.

The court granted judgment for damages, prejudgment interest, and punitive damages against Pennock, declaring the judgment non-dischargeable in bankruptcy due to fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the respondents' largely unsuccessful motion to stay or dismiss the applicant's proceeding.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, while the respondents sought costs thrown away due to the applicant's improper procedural choice (application instead of action) and conduct.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $50,000, but also awarded the respondents $25,000 "on account" for costs thrown away, considering the applicant's procedural misstep, improper contact with represented parties, and questionable urgency claims.

The net result was an order for the respondents to pay the applicant $25,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The self-represented applicant brought two applications seeking to challenge prior judicial decisions and seeking the recusal of a Regional Senior Justice in an underlying civil action.

The respondents moved to strike the applications.

The applicant sought a last-minute adjournment citing illness, which the court denied due to a lack of cogent medical evidence and a history of delay.

The court granted the respondents' motions, dismissing the applications as impermissible collateral attacks and an abuse of process.

The court also found the claims against the Attorney General and the Regional Senior Justice disclosed no reasonable cause of action due to judicial independence and absolute judicial immunity.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce a settlement reached on the eve of trial regarding an estate dispute over a property.

The plaintiffs argued there was no binding agreement as certain terms were not finalized, and disputed the calculation of 'net proceeds of sale', specifically regarding capital gains tax and sale expenses.

The court found that the Minutes of Settlement constituted a binding agreement and enforced it, holding that the objective interpretation of the agreement required the deduction of capital gains tax and shared expenses to determine the net proceeds.