Pierre N. Lermusieaux

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of an Associate Judge to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court quashed the motion, noting that under section 17 of the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal from an Associate Judge's order lies as of right to a Superior Court Judge, not the Divisional Court.

Reduced costs of $1,000 were awarded to the responding party because they failed to use Rule 2.1 to dispose of the motion summarily.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action and striking his amended statement of claim.

The motion judge had concluded that the action was outside the Superior Court's jurisdiction and that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the Divisional Court had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the issues raised, as the action fundamentally concerned the enforcement of statutory powers subject to judicial review, not a matter for the Superior Court.

The Brisson defendants brought a motion seeking to reinstate Christian Pilon and Charron Langlois S.R.L. as defendants to their counterclaim, to determine costs thrown away for amendments, and to compel disclosure of certain unredacted documents.

The court granted leave to amend the defence and counterclaim, ordered the reinstatement of both Christian Pilon and Charron Langlois S.R.L. as defendants to the counterclaim, and ordered the production of unredacted partnership agreements, a share purchase agreement, and Christian Pilon's 2015 T4/income tax return/notice of assessment.

Banking records were ordered with appropriate redactions.

The court declined to order costs thrown away, finding it unnecessary at this stage, and awarded partial indemnity costs of $14,000 all-inclusive to the Brisson defendants, noting the moving parties' excessive motion record and unnecessary cross-examination.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion regarding the respondent's legal capacity to bring an action and the adjournment of their motion concerning abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the capacity issue, finding no error in the motion judge's determination that it was not plain and obvious the respondent lacked capacity.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on the abuse of process issue, concluding that the motion judge erred by adjourning the matter sine die despite making findings that indicated an abuse of process.

The Court found the 'Milton Action' to be vexatious and an abuse of process, as it replicated a prior 'Toronto Action' without viable explanation, leading to unnecessary delay and expense.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the 'Milton Action'.

Le demandeur a intenté une action en jugement déclaratoire contre le procureur général et le lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil, alléguant que le Tribunal des droits de la personne de l'Ontario (TDPO) ne comptait aucun membre capable d'entendre sa cause en français.

Les défendeurs ont présenté une motion en radiation de la déclaration.

La Cour supérieure a accueilli la motion, concluant d'une part qu'elle n'avait pas compétence puisque le litige concernait l'exercice d'une compétence légale relevant de la compétence exclusive de la Cour divisionnaire en matière de révision judiciaire.

D'autre part, la Cour a conclu que la déclaration ne révélait aucune cause d'action raisonnable, car la demande était prématurée et théorique, le demandeur n'ayant pris aucune démarche auprès du TDPO pour faire avancer son dossier ou demander une audience en français.

The moving parties sought to dismiss the plaintiff's action under Rule 21.01(3)(b) for lack of legal capacity, arguing the claims were essentially for trademark infringement but failed to plead the Trademarks Act.

The court dismissed this ground, finding the plaintiff's claims were properly grounded in common law breach of contract, passing-off, and unjust enrichment.

The moving parties also argued the action was an abuse of process due to a related proceeding in Toronto.

The court deferred the abuse of process issue, strongly recommending the action be transferred to Toronto and joined with the related proceeding.