Priti Tamara Sugunasiri

This is a costs decision following an unsuccessful three-week trial where Robert Mark Roe challenged his mother's will and inter vivos gifts.

The court dismissed both actions (Will Action and Gift Action).

The decision addresses the costs sought by Randall Scott Roe (an estate trustee and successful respondent) and Raymond Christopher Roe (another estate trustee).

The court fixed costs, ordering Mark Roe to pay Randall Scott Roe $330,000 in all-inclusive costs, the estate to cover $260,338.03 of Randall's litigation costs, and Randall to be personally responsible for the balance.

Raymond Christopher Roe was reimbursed $170,000 from the estate for his conciliatory approach.

The parties separated after a 29-year marriage.

The respondent sought equalization and spousal support.

The court found the respondent abandoned her equalization claim by failing to obtain a business valuation for the applicant's company, despite court orders.

However, the court awarded the respondent retroactive and ongoing compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, imputing income to both parties due to the applicant's unreliable financial disclosure and consumer proposal, and the respondent's capacity to earn income.

The parties brought motions for interim relief regarding the sale of the matrimonial home, financial disclosure, child support, and spousal support.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home with the applicant having a first right of refusal.

The respondent was ordered to comply with outstanding financial disclosure obligations and pay interim child support of $800 per month.

The respondent's claim for interim spousal support was dismissed due to late filing and insufficient evidence of entitlement.

Issues of retroactive child support and imputing income were deferred to trial.

The defendant moved to dismiss a defamation action brought by a long-term care home and its CEO regarding tweets she made alleging elder abuse and neglect of her mother.

The court granted the anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding that the tweets related to a matter of public interest and that the plaintiffs failed to show sufficient harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

The applicant sought to enforce a separation agreement signed in March 2016 and fix the date of separation as the date of the agreement.

The respondent challenged the validity of the agreement and argued the date of separation was July 31, 2018.

The court set aside the separation agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act because the applicant failed to disclose significant assets, specifically an impending $4 million investment in his company.

The court also found that the parties' conduct after March 2016, including living together, travelling, and attending therapy, indicated a reasonable prospect of reconciliation.

The court fixed the date of separation as July 31, 2018.

This trial decision addresses the validity of a Cohabitation Agreement (CA) and associated property claims between common-law spouses.

The Applicant sought to set aside the CA, alleging duress, undue influence, unconscionability, misrepresentation, and lack of meaningful independent legal advice (ILA), and claimed a constructive trust interest in the family home.

The court found that the Applicant was not under duress or undue influence when signing the CA, nor were the property division provisions unconscionable.

The court also determined that the parties' conduct did not repudiate the CA.

The Applicant's claims regarding the CA's validity concerning property rights and her constructive trust claim were dismissed, affirming that property should be divided according to legal title as per the agreement.

The court heard a family law trial involving divorced spouses, Maria and Antonio Moretti, addressing claims for spousal support, child support, equalization of net family property, constructive trust over the matrimonial home, occupation rent, and breach of trust.

The court dismissed Maria's claims for retroactive and ongoing spousal support and equalization, finding her to have recklessly dissipated assets through gambling and undeclared income, which made an equal division unconscionable.

Antonio's claims for occupation rent and breach of trust were also dismissed.

The only remaining issue was ongoing child support for their adult son with autism, for which further evidence was required.

This case involved a dispute over a verbal contract for the supply of coyote furs between a fur marketing company and a fur manufacturing company.

The marketing company sued for unpaid invoices, and the manufacturing company counterclaimed for breach of contract, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, and conspiracy.

The court found a binding oral contract for a specific quantity of furs at a fixed price.

The marketing company breached the contract by failing to deliver the agreed quantity and by unilaterally increasing the price.

The court adjusted the marketing company's claim for unpaid invoices, granted the manufacturing company a refund for poor quality furs on one invoice, and relieved it from paying two other disputed invoices.

Claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, and conspiracy were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

Minimal damages were awarded to the manufacturing company for the breach of contract due to lack of reliable quantification and mitigation evidence.

A third-party claim against an individual was also dismissed.

The defendants, Costco entities, brought a motion to stay an action initiated by TicketOps Corporation, alleging breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and conversion of intellectual property.

The motion was based on arbitration clauses in agreements between the parties.

The plaintiff argued that the claims primarily related to platforms not covered by the arbitration clauses.

Applying the Haas v. Gunasekaram framework, the court found that the defendants had arguably demonstrated that the arbitration agreements applied to all platforms in dispute.

The plaintiff failed to prove that the arbitration provisions were clearly inoperative or unconscionable.

Consequently, the court stayed the action in favour of arbitration, acknowledging the potential for fragmented adjudication due to multiple arbitral forums.

The plaintiff, an elderly homeowner, brought a motion to continue a Mareva injunction against her contractor, hold the proceeds of the sale of her home in court, and set aside a default judgment obtained by a mortgagee.

She alleged that the defendants conspired to defraud her by charging exorbitant amounts for a home renovation funded by unconscionable high-interest mortgages.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud based on the significant discrepancy between the quoted cost and the amount paid for the renovations.

The court continued the Mareva injunction until the contractor posted $500,000 in security, ordered the sale proceeds to remain in court, and set aside the default judgment, allowing the plaintiff to defend the mortgage action on the merits.

The plaintiffs sued their former lawyer and her law firm for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, primarily alleging she mishandled a security for costs motion and other procedural steps, resulting in higher legal fees.

The court found that the action was essentially a fee dispute cloaked as a negligence claim.

The plaintiffs failed to tender expert evidence to establish the standard of care for the lawyer's advice, and the court found no clear error or egregious conduct in her handling of the file.

The action was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay $80,000 in costs on an elevated scale due to their improper motives in bringing the litigation.

The defendants brought a motion to exclude a SPECT scan from being shown to the jury by the plaintiff's expert neurologist, arguing it was novel science and unreliable for diagnosing a mild traumatic brain injury.

The court dismissed the motion, distinguishing this case from previous decisions where SPECT scans were used as the sole diagnostic tool by a nuclear medicine specialist.

The court permitted the clinical neurologist to refer to the SPECT scan because it was used as one of many diagnostic tools to confirm a clinical diagnosis, and the nuclear medicine specialist's opinions were redacted to prevent undue influence on the jury.

The applicants sought to determine their entitlement to the proceeds of sale of a property, claiming priority based on a third mortgage and an equitable fourth mortgage.

The execution creditors challenged the interest rate on the third mortgage and the validity of the equitable fourth mortgage.

The court held that the interest rate on the third mortgage was governed by the underlying promissory note, which clearly set out an annual rate of 20% after maturity, complying with the Interest Act.

However, the court declined to grant an equitable fourth mortgage, finding that the terms were uncertain and the debtor had no intention of registering a mortgage when the right crystallized.

The plaintiffs purchased an existing franchise and subsequently sought to rescind the franchise agreement under the Arthur Wishart Act, alleging the franchisor failed to provide a disclosure document.

The franchisor argued it was exempt under section 5(7) of the Act because the grant was not effected by or through it.

The court found that the franchisor did effect the transfer by requiring a new franchise agreement, a new sublease, and a new inventory fee, thereby voiding the exemption.

The court held the franchisor, its landlord affiliate, and its principal jointly and severally liable as franchisor's associates, awarding the plaintiffs $85,100 in damages.

At the start of a motion for a Mareva injunction, a journalist requested permission to record the proceeding with his own audio recording device pursuant to s. 136(2)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court denied the request, finding that while the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction permits media to use electronic devices for notetaking, this is subject to the presiding judge's discretion under the Act.

Because an official court reporter was present to provide a complete and accurate recording, the court held there was no need for a second recording by the media.

The plaintiff was struck by a TTC bus and awarded damages for past loss of income at trial.

The defendants brought a motion to deduct the non-earner benefits (NEBs) the plaintiff received under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule from the tort award for income loss, arguing that recent case law and legislative changes placed NEBs in the 'income loss silo'.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that it remained bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in Walker v. Ritchie, which established that NEBs compensate for loss of enjoyment of life and are not deductible from income loss awards.

The court found that obiter comments in a subsequent Court of Appeal decision did not overturn this established principle.

The applicant challenged his mother's Will, which disinherited him, arguing she lacked testamentary capacity, suffered from insane delusions, and was unduly influenced by his brother.

The court found that while the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances, the respondents successfully proved the testator had testamentary capacity and was not operating under insane delusions.

The court held that the testator's reasons for disinheriting the applicant, though perhaps unreasonable or based on misunderstandings, were grounded in actual events and did not amount to insane delusions.

The applicant also failed to prove undue influence.

The application and related action were dismissed.

The plaintiff was struck by a transit bus while crossing the street, sustaining multiple fractures to her left ankle and knee.

Following a jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded $175,000 in general damages, the defendants brought a motion arguing the plaintiff did not meet the statutory threshold under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court reviewed the medical evidence, preferring the plaintiff's orthopaedic expert who found objective evidence of post-traumatic osteoarthritis and permanent restricted range of motion.

The court concluded the plaintiff sustained a permanent and serious impairment of an important physical function that substantially interfered with her activities of daily living.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, entitling the plaintiff to the jury's award for non-pecuniary damages.

The applicant, a passive minority shareholder in a closely-held printing business, brought an oppression application against the majority shareholder.

The applicant sought to force a buyout of his shares at fair market value, alleging he was excluded from decision-making and denied financial information.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had historically chosen not to be involved in the business and that the respondent had not frustrated any reasonable expectations.

The court concluded that the oppression remedy was an improper vehicle for resolving a simple dispute over share valuation.

The plaintiff vendor and defendant purchaser cross-moved for summary judgment regarding a failed real estate transaction.

The vendor claimed the purchaser anticipatorily breached the agreement based on third-hand information about the purchaser's lack of funds and a request for a closing extension, and thus the vendor did not tender on closing day.

The court held that third-party information and requests for extensions do not constitute anticipatory breach.

Because there was no anticipatory breach, the vendor was required to tender to preserve her rights.

The vendor's action was dismissed.