Peter A. Daley

During a case conference regarding an application to sell a house, the court determined that the parties' mother appeared to have an interest in the property.

Given an Enduring Power of Attorney that only takes effect upon incapacity, the court ordered a capacity assessment of the mother under s. 9(3) of the Substitute Decisions Act to determine if she is capable of managing her property and whether a litigation guardian needs to be appointed.

The plaintiffs brought an ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction to register a charge against the defendant's property.

The defendant had anticipatorily breached an agreement of purchase and sale for the plaintiffs' residential property.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case and met the five-part test for a Mareva injunction, noting the defendant had taken her property off the market and was travelling to India with no return date.

The motion was granted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of the settlement of tort and statutory accident benefit claims on behalf of two minor plaintiffs injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The court reviewed the contingency fee agreement and found it fair in form, but reduced the solicitor's fees on the accident benefits claim from 20% to 15%, noting the distinction between tort litigation and processing accident benefits.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's proposed structured settlement format, instead approving the structure recommended by the Office of the Children's Lawyer, which maximized the funds and included indexation to protect against inflation.

The settlement for the other minor plaintiff was approved as proposed.

The defendant, The Corporation of the City of Brampton, brought a summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's action, but later abandoned it.

The plaintiff, Inzola Group Limited, sought costs for the abandoned motion on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found the plaintiff was entitled to partial indemnity costs for the period up to September 2016 and substantial indemnity costs for the period between September and November 2016, concluding that the defendant acted unreasonably in delaying the abandonment of the motion after critical evidence emerged.

The court fixed the total costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.

The applicants sought a declaration of exclusive use over a right-of-way (ROW) connected to their property and permanent injunctions against the Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT) and Nicola Ross.

The OHT, as the servient tenement owner, permitted public access to the ROW, which also served as access to the Bruce Trail.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the easement did not grant exclusive use to the applicants and that there was no substantial interference with their rights.

The court also found the applicants lacked "clean hands" due to misleading evidence and dismissed the injunction claim against Ms. Ross, noting her statements were consistent with OHT's position and not made with malice.

The defendants sought summary judgment in a medical negligence action, proposing to address causation and standard of care.

The case management judge, applying the Hryniak v. Mauldin framework, assessed whether the proposed motion, requiring a mini-trial with extensive viva voce expert evidence, would be proportionate, timely, and affordable.

Given the complexity of competing medical opinions on delayed diagnosis and the effectiveness of antiviral treatment, the anticipated length of the mini-trial (7-10 days), and the unlikelihood of resolving all triable issues, the judge concluded that the motion would not meet the goals of efficient dispute resolution.

Consequently, the defendants' proposed summary judgment motion was denied, and the scheduled motion dates were vacated, with the judge remaining seized to schedule an early trial.

The applicants sought to remove the respondent from his position as mayor due to alleged conflicts of interest, but their applications were dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the respondent's request for costs.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs, totaling $78,298.93, to be paid by the applicants.

Kelly Darnley was ordered to pay $66,298.93 and Charles Bristoll $12,000.

The court declined substantial indemnity costs, finding the applicants' conduct not reprehensible, but noted their broad and unsupported allegations unnecessarily increased complexity.

The plaintiff brought a motion to exclude potential jurors or permit challenges for cause in a civil motor vehicle accident case, arguing that jurors who pay automobile insurance premiums have an inherent conflict of interest.

The court adjourned the motion, directing the plaintiff to serve the Attorney General and inviting The Advocates' Society to intervene as a friend of the court, recognizing the novel and broad implications of the issues raised regarding civil jury selection and impartiality.

The respondents brought a request under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the self-represented applicant's application for judicial review as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The respondents argued the application was an attempt to relitigate prior adjudicative decisions of the Social Benefits Tribunal and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The court dismissed the request, noting that determining whether the applicant was relitigating issues would require reviewing over a dozen prior decisions.

Following established precedent, the court held that if a judge must work through multiple cases to discern relitigation, the pleadings are not frivolous or vexatious on their face.

The defendant brought a motion seeking a rehearing or variation of a previous endorsement by Murray J. concerning a settlement agreement, arguing that no final decision was made or that there was a misapprehension of evidence and denial of natural justice.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to carry Murray J.'s endorsement into operation and enforce the settlement agreement.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that Murray J.'s endorsement constituted a final "decision" under s. 123 of the Courts of Justice Act, precluding a rehearing.

The court also found that the defendant's lengthy and unexplained delay, coupled with a lack of new evidence, prevented relief under Rule 59.06.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to enforce Murray J.'s endorsement was granted.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The respondents brought a request under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to dismiss the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, citing numerous prior cases involving the applicant.

The court dismissed the respondents' Rule 2.1.01 request, holding that determining whether the applicant was relitigating would require an extensive review of many prior decisions, which meant the pleadings were not *on their face* frivolous, vexatious, or abusive.

The interim stay on the application was vacated, and the applicant was awarded costs.

The applicants sought declarations that the respondent, the mayor of Caledon, contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by voting on land development matters in which he allegedly had a pecuniary interest.

The court found no evidence that the respondent had a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the matters voted upon, noting that his property was located several kilometers away from the developments and any potential development of his land was decades in the future.

Both applications were dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend her statement of claim to change the defendant's name from "Sheraton Hotels and Resorts" to "Four Points by Sheraton Toronto Airport" and to change the location of the alleged slip and fall.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it was not a case of misnomer but an attempt to add a new party after the limitation period had expired.

The court found no evidence to support the plaintiff's claim of misnomer or that the proposed defendant had timely notice of the incident, and noted significant prejudice to the proposed defendant.

The applicant brought a motion to consolidate or hear together two applications seeking the removal of a mayor and a councillor for alleged breaches of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that one of the applications had already been fully argued and was no longer 'pending' as required by Rule 6.01.

Furthermore, the court held that the applications required individualized reviews of separate impugned votes, meaning there were no common material facts that would justify joinder or risk inconsistent judicial findings.

The offender, a first-time offender, was found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a 21-month custodial sentence, while the offender proposed a conditional sentence of 18 months to two years less a day.

The court imposed a 20-month conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while recognizing the offender's strong rehabilitation prospects and low risk of reoffending.

The sentence included strict house arrest conditions, a DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition, followed by 12 months of probation.

The plaintiff bank sought leave to appeal a motion judge's dismissal of its summary judgment motion for unpaid credit card and line of credit debts.

The plaintiff argued the motion judge erred by allowing the defendant to rely on unpleaded defences of non est factum and unconscionability.

The Divisional Court found there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal because the issues did not involve matters of general or public importance extending beyond the immediate parties.

The plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment against the defendant for unpaid credit debts.

The motion judge had dismissed summary judgment, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the defendant's unpleaded defences of non est factum and unconscionability.

The court, in this leave to appeal motion, found reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, particularly regarding the consideration of unpleaded defences.

However, leave to appeal was denied because the proposed appeal did not involve matters of such importance that transcended the immediate parties' interests or would enhance existing jurisprudence.

The third-party Wasylko Architect Inc. brought a motion to transfer an action from Milton to London, which the plaintiff opposed.

The action concerned property damages in London due to construction work.

The court applied Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) holistically, considering factors such as where events occurred, damages were sustained, the subject matter's location, local community interest, convenience of parties and witnesses, and court facility availability.

The court found London to be a significantly better venue due to the strong factual connection to London and Milton's inability to accommodate a lengthy trial, which would cause significant delays.

The motion was granted, transferring the main action and related third-party actions to London.

The applicants brought a motion to strike portions of the respondents' affidavits filed in a pending application regarding a right of way dispute and defamation claims.

The applicants argued the impugned paragraphs contained irrelevant, prejudicial, and hearsay evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence was either withdrawn from objection by the applicants or was admissible as it went to the respondents' state of mind, responded directly to issues raised by the applicants, or provided relevant narrative history rather than being offered for the truth of its contents.

The offenders were found guilty of conspiracy to import 112 kg of cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The cocaine was hidden in wooden pallets in a sea container shipped from Guyana.

The court found both offenders were principal participants in a sophisticated importation scheme.

Buttazzoni, who had a prior drug conviction in the US and made threats of violence, was sentenced to 17 years.

Ramlall, a first-time offender who received the pallets at his home, was sentenced to 15 years.

Both received credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest.