Raymond Gary Colautti

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which sought damages arising from a child protection agency's investigation into allegations that a foster parent sexually abused a foster child.

The court struck the claims in negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of statutory duty, and defamation, finding that a child protection agency does not owe a duty of care to foster parents, as its paramount duty is to the child.

The claims against the individual employees were also struck due to statutory immunity.

However, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their claim to plead the tort of misfeasance in public office.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, brought a defamation action against the defendant, a former law partner and opposing counsel, over an article published in an insurance adjusters' magazine.

The article accused the plaintiff of making false representations during a pretrial conference, based on a lower court decision that was later overturned on appeal.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and the defendant moved to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the action, finding that while the claim had substantial merit, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant had no valid defence, as the defence of qualified privilege was legally tenable and required a trial to determine if it was defeated by malice.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from successful summary judgment motions brought by the defendants, Jeffrey Lehman et al. and the Corporation of the City of Barrie, against Correct Building Corporation and Correct Group Inc. The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the individual defendants, finding the claims against them frivolous, baseless, and an abuse of process.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the City of Barrie, with a reduction for an abandoned counterclaim and an unrecoverable disbursement for an unproduced expert report.

The total costs awarded were $1,066,412.62.

This motion concerned an application by two members of a co-operative housing enterprise, Saffia Abdul-Haqq and Masbal Abokar, for an advance payment of $46,000 in legal fees from the co-op's funds.

The purpose of these funds was to oppose a pending motion by the City of Toronto to extend the appointment of an interim receiver over the co-op's business and affairs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to satisfy the "highly exceptional" test for advance interim costs, specifically failing to establish a prima facie meritorious case or special circumstances, despite their impecuniosity.

The court found no conflict between the Housing Services Act and the Co-operative Corporations Act regarding receivership, nor any infringement of Charter rights.

The co-op's funds were deemed necessary for essential repairs and financial rehabilitation, not for funding the applicants' opposition.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university adjudicator's decision regarding her sexual assault complaint against another student.

The adjudicator had deferred the outcome of the university's disciplinary appeal to the result of the respondent's pending criminal trial.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the adjudicator unlawfully delegated his decision-making authority and improperly imported the criminal standard of proof into an administrative proceeding.

The decision was quashed and remitted to a different adjudicator.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's $30,326.95 claim for construction materials on summary judgment, the successful defendants sought costs of over $47,000.

The plaintiff had also incurred costs exceeding the claim amount.

The court criticized the disproportionate legal fees expended by both parties for a modest liquidated claim.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded the defendants fixed costs of $21,766.56.

The appellant subcontractor supplied materials to a construction project but was not paid by the contractor, who subsequently went bankrupt.

Having failed to register a construction lien, the appellant sued the owner for breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act and unjust enrichment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Act requires privity of trust for a trust claim and that the comprehensive statutory scheme of the Act provides a juristic reason precluding an unjust enrichment claim against the owner.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of interim orders made by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which restricted his medical practice due to concerns that his conduct exposed patients to harm.

The applicant argued the decisions were unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC reasonably relied on expert evidence to conclude patients were likely to be exposed to harm, and that the paper-based process followed by the ICRC met the required duty of procedural fairness for interim protective orders.

A case management teleconference was held to address procedural issues in an application for judicial review of a decision by the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The parties could not resolve issues regarding the admissibility of the applicant's materials.

The court directed the respondent to bring a motion to strike the contested materials, to be heard by the panel hearing the underlying application.

The court also set a timetable for the exchange of materials, scheduled the hearing for September 18, 2020, and provided directions on addressing a potential stay of the College's decision pending the court's ruling.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages arising from the flooding of their greenhouse, alleging the defendants negligently altered their adjacent property and caused the flood.

The parties had previously entered into Minutes of Settlement regarding the dispute, which the defendants subsequently breached by failing to construct a berm.

The court held that the plaintiffs could not rescind the settlement to resurrect their tort claim, as they had contracted it away.

Furthermore, the court found the plaintiffs failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the defendants caused the flooding.

However, the court granted a declaration that the defendants breached the Minutes of Settlement, entitling the plaintiffs to damages for that breach.

Following an appeal where the appellants achieved mixed success, the appellants requested to make written costs submissions, arguing that each side should bear their own costs of the appeal and costs below should be in the cause.

The Court of Appeal affirmed its original costs order, finding that the respondent was more successful on the appeal as the appellants' claim was largely statute-barred.

The original award of $6,500 in appeal costs to the respondent was maintained.

The appellants commenced an action in nuisance and negligence against the respondent municipality for property damage allegedly caused by heavy truck traffic vibrations.

The action was commenced after the Ontario Municipal Board declined jurisdiction over the appellants' injurious affection claim.

The motion judge dismissed the civil action as statute-barred under the two-year limitation period.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the application of the two-year limitation period and the finding that it was not legally appropriate to wait for the OMB decision before commencing the civil action.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the municipality engaged in ongoing wrongful conduct causing damage within the two years prior to the statement of claim.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's conclusion that the officer had subjective reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, finding it supported by evidence and objectively reasonable.

The allegation of negligent investigation was dismissed because the appellants failed to present expert evidence on the standard of care to rebut the police's evidence.

The court affirmed that summary judgment in favour of a defendant was appropriate in this case.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff subcontractor, Tremblar Building Supplies Ltd., brought an action against the owner defendants (The Lighting Boutique Defendants) for breach of trust under the Construction Act and unjust enrichment, seeking payment for materials supplied to a general contractor (Keystone) that subsequently declared bankruptcy.

The owner defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that no statutory trust existed between the owner and the subcontractor due to a lack of privity of contract, as established by prior Divisional Court rulings.

Furthermore, the court determined that the existing contractual arrangements and the comprehensive scheme of the Construction Act constituted juristic reasons, thereby precluding any claim for unjust enrichment.

The defendant, Corporation of the Town of LaSalle, brought a motion to dismiss the action or, alternatively, to strike the matter from the trial list or adjourn the trial, supported by the Tedesco defendants.

The motion was based on the plaintiffs' non-compliance with pre-trial orders regarding expert reports, cost estimates, and financial disclosure, as well as unanswered undertakings from discovery.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not fully complied with disclosure requirements, particularly concerning repair cost estimates and corporate income loss documentation.

Consequently, the court struck the action from the March 30, 2020 trial list, ordering that it not be restored until a court-approved schedule for remaining steps is established, to allow defendants to react to newly provided information and conduct further examinations.

The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, brought an action for wrongful dismissal against the defendants, a restaurant corporation and its majority financial backer.

The wife also claimed a remedy for shareholder oppression under s. 248 of the OBCA.

The court found that the wife was not expressly or constructively dismissed, but rather had resigned from her employment.

The husband's wrongful dismissal claim was also dismissed as he had received adequate payment in lieu of notice.

On the oppression claim, the court found that the defendants' failure to provide annual audited financial statements and the majority backer's post-litigation correspondence violated the wife's reasonable expectations as a shareholder.

The court ordered the purchase of the wife's shares, valuing them at $1.00 as of the date of the original oppressive conduct in 2010, given the corporation's significant debt at that time.

Claims for unjust enrichment and fraudulent misrepresentation were dismissed, as was the defendants' counterclaim for defamation.

The plaintiff landlords sued the City of Windsor and its fire investigators for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution after being charged with operating non-compliant boarding, lodging, or rooming houses under the Fire Code.

The plaintiffs argued the investigators lacked reasonable grounds and were motivated by a desire to curb student housing.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the investigator had reasonable grounds to believe the properties were rooming houses based on the statutory definitions, and that he acted reasonably by seeking advice before laying charges.

The court also found no evidence of malice or oblique motive.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) refusing to remove the respondent hospital's counsel for an alleged conflict of interest.

The hospital moved to quash the judicial review application as premature, while the applicant moved to convert the application into an appeal and stay the HPARB proceedings.

The Divisional Court quashed the judicial review application, finding no exceptional circumstances justified interfering with the ongoing administrative process.

The court also refused to convert the application to an appeal, as the HPARB decision was interlocutory, and dismissed the motion for a stay.

Following a decision in favour of the defendant, the court determined the quantum and scale of costs.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the plaintiffs' actions were improper.

The court rejected this characterization, finding the plaintiffs acted within the boundaries of the law.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $11,850 inclusive of HST, as submitted by the plaintiffs.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to stay the action pending the outcome of a hospital board hearing, both parties sought costs.

The defendants sought $18,358.12, while the plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs based on prior offers to settle.

The court found the defendants' bill of costs to be excessive given the relative simplicity of the issues and fixed costs at $7,500 payable to the defendants.