Ranjan K. Agarwal

The plaintiff catering company sued its former executive chef and a daycare customer after the chef resigned to work directly for the daycare, moving its meal program onsite.

The plaintiff alleged the chef misappropriated confidential information, including menus and pricing, and breached non-competition and non-solicitation clauses.

The plaintiff also alleged the defendants intentionally destroyed electronic evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action in its entirety.

The court found the menus and processes were not confidential, the restrictive covenants were overly broad and unenforceable, the employee was not a fiduciary, and the defendants did not engage in spoliation of evidence.

The court also gave no weight to the plaintiff's electronic evidence due to a lack of forensic preservation.

The applicant moved for financial disclosure from her former spouse in the context of a motion to change child support.

The court found that the motion was improperly briefed by both parties, with voluminous and confusing materials filed at the last minute.

Despite the procedural deficiencies, the court ruled on the outstanding undertakings and refusals from the respondent's questioning, ordering him to provide the requested financial information.

No costs were awarded due to the applicant's failure to provide a timely costs outline and the disproportionate nature of the costs claimed.

The plaintiff, Mohammad Reza Kamrani-Ghadjar, seeking leave to represent a class in a securities class action, served an affidavit from a lawyer, Lon Michael Kirsh.

The defendants, Anaergia Inc., Andrew Benedek, and Hani El-Kaissi, moved to strike the affidavit, arguing it contained inadmissible opinion evidence.

After the plaintiff served a revised affidavit removing opinions, the defendants moved again to strike it, alleging irrelevance and immateriality.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding the affidavit contained permissible observations of voluminous public filings rather than inadmissible opinions.

However, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay $10,000 in costs thrown away to the defendants due to the initial inadmissible affidavit.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence as an abuse of process under Rule 25.11(c), alleging the defendant's lawyer was non-responsive and failed to serve a notice of change of lawyer.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that Rule 25.11 is reserved for abusive pleadings, not to sanction a lawyer's conduct during the proceeding.

The court also found no requirement for lawyers in the same workplace to serve a notice of change.

Despite the defendant's success, the court declined to award costs, finding that the motion could have been avoided if the defendant's lawyer had communicated promptly and professionally with the self-represented plaintiff.

The Town of Milton brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a negligence claim by the plaintiffs, who alleged catastrophic injuries from a motorcycle accident caused by a pothole.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove non-repair or causation, and that the Town met the minimum maintenance standards for the road.

The motion was not premature despite incomplete discoveries, as the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to pursue discovery.

Costs were awarded to the Town of Milton.

The respondent, Shruti Bhatia, brought a motion seeking an order that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decline jurisdiction over divorce proceedings, arguing that India was the "clearly more appropriate" forum.

The court had previously established jurisdiction simpliciter under the Divorce Act.

The motion was dismissed, as the respondent failed to demonstrate that India was significantly more appropriate.

The court considered factors such as the location of parties and witnesses (noting the child's connections to India arose from unlawful abduction), the costs of transferring the case, and the potential for conflicting judgments or loss of juridical advantage, finding no compelling reason to displace Ontario's jurisdiction.

The applicant and respondent, both self-represented, sought various relief following a high-conflict separation.

The applicant sought sole decision-making responsibility, restricted parenting time for the respondent, equalization, child support, and a restraining order.

The respondent sought sole decision-making for the younger children, shared parenting time, and occupation rent.

The court found the respondent had engaged in family violence and coercive control, and the parties were unable to communicate or cooperate.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility and maintained the status quo for the respondent's parenting time.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, imputed income to both parties, and ordered the respondent to pay ongoing and retroactive child support, equalization, the Mahr, and post-separation adjustments totaling $148,965.54.

The court also granted a restraining order against the respondent and dismissed his claim for occupation rent.

The defendants, a children's aid society and its employees, moved to strike the self-represented plaintiffs' claims arising from a child protection investigation.

The court struck the parents' claims for intrusion upon seclusion, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and Charter damages with leave to amend, finding the pleadings lacked necessary material facts.

The negligence claims were struck without leave to amend because a children's aid society does not owe a duty of care to parents.

The court also granted a sealing order to protect the privacy interests of the children involved.

The applicant sought an order for the return of the child (SK) to Canada and a parenting order, arguing that the child was habitually resident in Ontario.

The respondent claimed Ontario had no jurisdiction, asserting SK was habitually resident in India.

The court found that SK was habitually resident in Ontario at the start of the application, as the respondent had unlawfully abducted the child to India and the applicant had not consented or acquiesced.

The court declined to make an immediate "chasing order" for the child's return, citing insufficient evidence on best interests and lack of express statutory authority, but ordered the respondent to file an answer to proceed to trial on parenting issues.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 20-year marriage.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent gifted the matrimonial home to her, spousal support, and a restraining order.

The respondent sought occupation rent and various deductions from his net family property.

The court found that the transfer of the matrimonial home was not a gift but was done to shield it from creditors, resulting in a resulting trust where the respondent held a one-half beneficial interest.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $368,029.86 and indefinite spousal support.

The claims for a restraining order and occupation rent were dismissed.

This decision addresses pre-trial applications in a human trafficking case.

The accused sought production of third-party records and leave to adduce evidence of the complainant's other sexual activity under section 276(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown also sought leave to adduce evidence of the complainant's other sexual activity under common law principles.

The court granted the defence's application for third-party records in part, ordering specific police records to be produced.

The applications regarding other sexual history evidence were also granted in part.

The Crown was permitted to introduce evidence of the complainant's prior involvement in the sex trade, including sexual photographs and her street name.

The defence was permitted to cross-examine the complainant on whether her prior sex work was independent and on specific text messages with the accused that might contradict her narrative of being trafficked.

However, certain evidence, such as a police officer's text message and later police records suggesting independent sex work, was deemed inadmissible due to lack of relevance or not constituting a specific instance of sexual activity.

The accused, Rene Smith, applied for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging an infringement of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial end was over 31 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court cases.

The court found no defence delay but identified two exceptional circumstances: the court's loss of disclosure (4 months and 10 days) and a mistrial (11 days), which were beyond the Crown's control.

The appointment of an amicus was not deemed exceptional as the need was foreseeable.

After subtracting the exceptional delay, the net delay fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The court dismissed the application for a stay, concluding that the remaining delay was not unreasonable, despite the applicant's efforts to expedite proceedings, as his conduct made the case more complex.

The accused was stopped during a Festive R.I.D.E. campaign.

Police smelled raw cannabis and searched the vehicle, finding a loaded handgun.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the firearm and statements made to police, alleging breaches of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) rights.

The court found that the search based solely on the smell of raw cannabis was unreasonable, leading to arbitrary detention and a breach of the right to counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded, as the admission of the reliable evidence of a serious gun crime would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The statements were also found to be voluntary and admissible.

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage involving allegations of family violence and mental health challenges.

The applicant sought final decision-making authority and a therapeutic order against the respondent, while the respondent sought majority parenting time and sole decision-making.

The court ordered shared parenting time and joint decision-making, requiring the use of a parenting coordinator for impasses.

The court also ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, an equalization payment to the respondent, and imputed income to the respondent for the purposes of calculating child and spousal support.

The plaintiff, 1672736 Ontario Inc. (Dunpar Homes), sued the defendants, Ezio Savini (Chief Building Official) and the City of Mississauga, for over $10 million in damages, alleging misfeasance in public office and negligence due to significant delays in building permit applications and unlawful stop work orders for its Streetsville Centre housing project.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiff's pleadings sufficiently disclosed reasonable causes of action for both misfeasance in public office and negligence.

The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff $15,000 in costs for the motion.

The representative plaintiffs moved to discontinue their Ontario class action regarding allegedly defective surgical staplers, intending to rely instead on an overlapping class action in British Columbia.

The defendants opposed the discontinuance and sought an indefinite adjournment, arguing that discontinuing the Ontario action before the resolution of their stay application in B.C. would prejudice absent class members by restarting the limitation period.

The court agreed that the risk of limitations prejudice to absent class members was too great and adjourned the motion indefinitely.

The court also invoked the Canadian Judicial Protocol for the Management of MultiJurisdictional Class Actions to coordinate with the B.C. court.

The plaintiffs, two senior citizens, were detained and arrested at the Canada-U.S. border by the CBSA and subsequently the Niagara Police based on outdated CPIC information indicating they had breached undertakings.

The undertakings had been vacated weeks earlier, but the RCMP failed to update the CPIC system.

The court found that the RCMP breached its duty of care by failing to promptly remove the inaccurate information, and that the CBSA and Niagara Police breached their standard of care by failing to verify the CPIC information before arresting the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' section 9 Charter rights were also violated.

The court awarded general and punitive damages against the RCMP and Niagara Police, but dismissed the claims against the CBSA as statute-barred under the Customs Act.

The moving party (respondent in the main application) brought a motion to strike the responding party's family law application due to his failure to pay two outstanding costs orders.

The responding party admitted non-compliance but sought an adjournment of the trial to allow him time to pay.

The court declined to strike the application, noting that parenting issues required both parties' participation.

However, the court found it would be unjust to allow the responding party to force the moving party to incur costs for a responding expert report while he remained in breach of court orders.

The court ordered that the responding party could not rely on an expert witness report for his spousal support defence unless he paid the outstanding costs orders.

The applicants, Walter Daniel Bross and Linda M. Bross, brought a motion for production of documents from MNP LLP, an accounting firm retained by the respondents, Jeff Bross and Sharon Bross.

The documents were initially provided to the applicants' counsel on a "counsel's eyes only" basis following an undertaking during a cross-examination.

The applicants sought full disclosure after their summary judgment motion (which was granted in their favour, ending the proceeding) was heard.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Rule 30 of the Rules of Civil Procedure did not apply to applications or undertakings on cross-examinations on affidavits, and that the documents were no longer relevant as the underlying proceeding had concluded.

Costs of $3500 were awarded to the respondents.

The applicant sought to terminate child support for three adult children.

The court found that one child (Sommer) was no longer a child of the marriage as of June 2019, and another (Dawson) was no longer a child of the marriage as of when he started full-time work in 2021 (date to be determined).

However, the third child (Hailie) remained a child of the marriage due to health issues and a temporary hiatus from studies.

The court varied the interim support order accordingly, but stayed the order regarding Dawson until the applicant complied with a previous financial disclosure order.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.