Peter-Paul E. Du Vernet

The defendants requested the dismissal of the self-represented plaintiff's claim under Rule 2.1.01, arguing it disclosed no cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious.

The plaintiff sought damages for privacy torts but failed to plead any material facts.

The court found the claim was improperly pleaded but not obviously frivolous or an abuse of process.

The court stayed the action under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act until the plaintiff files a fresh as amended statement of claim.

The appellants challenged the Ontario Securities Commission's decision to constitute a different panel for the sanctions hearing than the panel that presided over the merits hearing.

The merits panel found that the appellants had sold securities without being registered as dealers and traded securities without a prospectus.

After the original commissioners' terms expired, a new panel was appointed to conduct the sanctions hearing.

The appellants argued this violated the Statutory Powers Procedures Act and principles of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court split on the issue but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding the Commission's interpretation reasonable.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that both interpretations were reasonable and that the Commission's approach did not violate procedural fairness or natural justice.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of part of its application for relief arising from a fire at an adjoining semi-detached property.

The appellant sought recovery of losses caused by the fire and subsequent conduct of the respondent and its predecessor.

The key issue was whether the respondent, having purchased the damaged property several months after the fire, became liable for damages caused to the appellant's property prior to the respondent's acquisition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the respondent had no involvement in and could not be responsible for damages accrued before it acquired the property.

The court also reduced the respondent's costs award on appeal.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a previous decision that dismissed part of the applicant's application and converted the balance into an action.

The respondent sought 83% of its partial indemnity costs, arguing it was substantially successful on the dismissed issue.

The applicant argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge.

The court awarded the respondent $65,000 in costs for the dismissed issue, finding the applicant's changing case theory unnecessarily increased costs, and reserved the remaining costs to the trial judge.

Lixo Investments Limited applied for relief concerning demolition work by FCHT Holdings on an adjacent property, particularly regarding a shared party wall damaged by a prior fire.

The application sought damages for loss of use and reconstruction costs, alleging FCHT was responsible for pre-acquisition fire effects and negligent demolition.

The court dismissed claims related to pre-acquisition events, finding FCHT did not inherit prior tortious conduct.

For claims regarding FCHT's demolition work and its impact on the party wall, the court found material facts in dispute requiring viva voce evidence and expert testimony.

Consequently, the balance of the application was converted into an expedited action for trial.

The individual defendants, Mark Harrison and Graham Lee, brought a motion to strike the action against them in an employment law claim and also sought an order for particulars.

The plaintiff, Gary Watson, alleged constructive dismissal and a poisoned work environment due to the individual defendants' conduct.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the plaintiff's statement of claim alleged independent wrongdoing by the individual defendants, which was actionable.

The court also dismissed the demand for particulars, noting that the defendants had not demonstrated the particulars were outside their knowledge or necessary to plead.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order quashing notices of examination served on the responding defendants in relation to a Mareva injunction motion.

The responding defendants moved to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, finding that the order was interlocutory because it did not terminate the underlying action or resolve a substantive claim or defence.

The appeal lies to the Divisional Court.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to seal documents and transcripts related to a Mareva injunction.

The defendants argued that the documents should be sealed because one of the defendants was facing criminal fraud charges.

The motion judge had ruled that sealing was unnecessary because the defendants were protected by the privilege against self-incrimination and the implied undertaking rule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

The debtor filed a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

At the first meeting of creditors, the proposal trustee allowed several disputed creditors to vote, and the proposal was overwhelmingly defeated, resulting in a deemed assignment in bankruptcy.

The debtor appealed the trustee's decision, arguing the disputed creditors' claims should have been expunged due to unliquidated damages claims and equitable set-off.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the trustee correctly allowed the votes based on the record, and noted that the proposal would have been defeated even without the disputed votes.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motions for confidentiality orders and the plaintiff's cross-motion for a confidentiality order regarding materials for a pending Mareva injunction, the parties made written costs submissions.

The plaintiff sought $15,000, while the defendants argued for no costs due to the novelty of the legal issues.

The court ordered that costs of the motions be fixed at $5,000 in the cause of the Mareva injunction motion, finding this fair given the exigencies of the proceeding.

The court also awarded the defendants $500 each for the costs of their costs submissions, payable by the plaintiff.

In a civil fraud action accompanied by a pending Mareva injunction motion and related criminal proceedings, certain defendants sought confidentiality or sealing orders over their proposed affidavit and cross-examination evidence on the basis of self-incrimination concerns.

The court held that, as statutorily compellable witnesses in the civil proceeding, they were already protected by the principle against self-incrimination and no further protective order was required.

The plaintiff's cross-motion for a confidentiality order to permit filing of redacted motion materials was also dismissed because the open court principle was not displaced under the sealing-order test.

The court further held that disclosure of personal information in the motion record fell within the PIPEDA exception for compliance with rules of court relating to the production of records.

The appellants moved to set aside an administrative dismissal of their Divisional Court appeal and to extend the time for appeal.

The appeal had been dismissed by the Registrar based on a misapprehension that no transcript was required.

The court found that the dismissal was an administrative error, as transcripts had been ordered and the trial judge had not yet issued a final judgment on the construction lien issues.

The court set aside the dismissal and granted the extension of time, finding the four-part test for an extension was met.

The appellant client appealed an order varying an Assessment Officer's report.

The motion judge found that the Assessment Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by determining that the appellant was not a client of the respondent solicitor, which constituted a dispute over the retainer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the Assessment Officer improperly determined a retainer issue.

The court also upheld the motion judge's order imposing joint and several liability, noting the parties had previously consented to proceed by assessment on that basis.

The appellants/applicants sought to appeal and judicially review an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Securities Commission regarding the composition of a panel for a sanctions hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under s. 9(1) of the Securities Act, which only permits appeals from final decisions.

The application for judicial review was quashed as premature, as the procedural fairness and jurisdictional issues could be raised after the final decision.

Two appeals were brought from the decision of a Claims Officer in insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act concerning disputed landlord claims arising from leases originally entered in 1979.

One appellant challenged the Claims Officer’s jurisdiction to permit an amendment to a proof of claim and argued that the landlord failed to provide clear and timely notice of an intention to seek prospective damages following lease repudiation.

The other appellant argued that its claim was wrongly disallowed on the basis that notice of its intention to claim damages was untimely and prejudicial to the assignor tenant.

The court held that the Claims Officer had jurisdiction under the claims order to permit amendments and determine procedural matters and that the notice given by one landlord was sufficient.

The court also held that the second landlord’s delayed notice, after entering into a new lease in mitigation, prejudiced the assignor and justified disallowance of its claim.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Board had ruled it lacked jurisdiction to impose conditions on a private developer's subdivision approval for the benefit of an adjacent private landowner's future development.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on jurisdiction and rejecting the argument that procedural defects could bestow jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that declined to grant specific performance of a shareholders' agreement regarding his shares.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that post-judgment events had largely overtaken the appeal and that the trial judge was not asked to address the applicability of the agreement to the appellant's personal shares separately.

The Court also declined to interpret the term 'voluntary retirement' in the agreement, leaving it open for any subsequent litigation regarding share valuation.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent bank.

The Court of Appeal set aside the summary judgment, finding that it would be unjust to decide the issues on a motion for summary judgment in the circumstances of the case.

The appellant was permitted to discover what happened to the monies and why they were not repaid to him.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $25,000 in damages for breach of contract and denying the appellant pre-judgment interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the damage award as reasonable but found no basis for the respondent to retain three consignment watches without compensating the appellant.

The Court also held that the appellant was presumptively entitled to pre-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellants appealed a judgment finding that three corporate entities were essentially one, that a disclosure document was not provided to the respondents, and that the respondents did not damage or steal equipment from the premises.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge did not err in deciding the matter on the merits rather than ordering a trial, and that her factual conclusions were amply supported by the record.