R. D. Reilly

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granting the respondent monies due under a defaulted mortgage.

The appellants argued the judgment should not have been granted or should have been stayed because of an ongoing 2011 action alleging misappropriation of funds by a financial advisor who allegedly controlled the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence linking the respondent to the defendants in the 2011 action and no triable issues regarding liability under the mortgage.

The court also denied leave to appeal the motion judge's costs award.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the denial of her application for income support under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The tribunal had found that her impairments, including social phobia and anxiety, were not substantial and she did not meet the definition of a person with a disability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tribunal's weighing of the evidence to determine if impairments were substantial did not raise an extricable question of law.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to add its subcontractor as a defendant to an existing construction dispute after a tunnel collapse caused additional project costs.

The proposed defendant argued the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of a potential negligence claim when the tunnel collapse occurred and was therefore required to act with due diligence within two years of that event.

Discoverability did not extend the limitation period merely because the plaintiff later learned of the defendant’s alleged negligence through a statement of defence.

The motion to add the proposed defendant was denied as statute‑barred.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against several physicians and a hospital following the death of their newborn son.

The infant died from complications related to a rare congenital condition, anal stenosis, which was not diagnosed prior to his death.

The court found that the defendant physicians met the standard of care expected of general practitioners, as the condition was not externally visible and the infant did not present with symptoms warranting an urgent referral during their examinations.

The action was dismissed.

This was a standalone costs ruling following a trial involving a farm sale dispute and related counterclaim.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs from the date of an unaccepted offer to settle.

The court considered the Rule 57.01 factors and found merit in the request, but held the offer was not truly one of compromise because it required total capitulation.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $46,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and taxes, payable forthwith.

Three federal inmates applied for a declaration that they remained eligible for accelerated parole review under the pre-repeal Corrections and Conditional Release Act because their offences were committed before the Abolition of Early Parole Act came into force.

The court held that retrospective elimination of accelerated parole review delayed liberty and formed part of the applicants' punishment for purposes of s. 11(i) of the Charter.

Relying on the reasoning in Whaling and agreeing with prior Ontario and British Columbia authorities favouring the inmates, the court concluded the applicants were entitled to the benefit of the lesser punishment in force when their offences were committed.

The application was allowed and a declaration issued that they were eligible for accelerated parole review at one-sixth of their sentences.

In a dispute arising from the sale of a farm property with a large swine barn, the purchasers by counterclaim alleged negligent misrepresentation, intentional interference with economic interests, and breach of the duty of good faith after discovering on closing that the barn was empty of pigs.

The court held the purchasers had been told there was no written hog supply contract and that the arrangement with the supplier was merely an 'evergreen' verbal arrangement terminable at will.

Applying the negligent misrepresentation framework and the Supreme Court's articulation of honest performance in Bhasin, the court found no actionable misrepresentation and no dishonest contractual performance.

The purchasers received the farm property they had contracted to buy, and the counterclaim for the loss on subsequent resale was dismissed.

Following a motion in which defendants sought leave to issue a third party claim against two proposed third parties, the court dismissed the motion on the basis that no viable cause of action was disclosed and the claim was barred by the Limitations Act.

The successful proposed third parties sought partial indemnity costs of $16,174.22.

The moving defendants argued the amount was excessive and proposed $5,000 all inclusive.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the relatively narrow issues involved, the court reduced the requested amount and fixed costs payable to the successful parties.

Following a motion in family litigation in which the moving party obtained substantially all requested relief, the court determined costs.

The moving party had made two offers to settle that were largely consistent with the ultimate outcome and would have avoided the motion if accepted.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the moving party’s position reasonable and the responding party’s conduct less reasonable.

Although the bill of costs was not criticized, the court limited recovery given the relatively narrow issues involved in the motion.

The responding party was ordered to pay $36,000 in partial indemnity costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable at the end of the litigation.

Following an unsuccessful motion by the plaintiff to compel answers to questions refused at an examination for discovery, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party argued that costs should be in the cause, but the court rejected that position.

The responding party had been entirely successful on the motion and was therefore entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court found the responding party’s bill of costs reasonable and ordered payment forthwith.

Following two interim motions in an estate dispute, the court considered written submissions on costs.

Given the complex legal issues and contradictory affidavits, the court agreed with the estate trustee's counsel and reserved the issue of costs to the trial judge, who will be in a better position to finally determine the issues and any entitlement to costs.

The moving defendants sought leave to issue a third party claim for contribution and indemnity against an architect and related firm in a construction dispute involving alleged deficiencies in a cottage built in the early 1990s.

The proposed third parties argued the claim was unjustified and barred by the Limitations Act.

The court held that any alleged negligence by the architect would have been known years earlier and was therefore statute‑barred.

The court also found no evidentiary basis for a viable negligence claim against the architect on the record.

Leave to issue the third party claim was denied.

A municipal defendant brought a motion seeking leave to amend its statement of defence and crossclaim to add detailed allegations of negligence against co-defendants in a construction dispute involving a cottage.

The responding parties argued that the proposed amendments introduced a new cause of action and were therefore barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act.

The court held that most of the proposed amendments merely particularized the existing claim for contribution and indemnity under the Negligence Act and did not constitute a new cause of action.

However, an allegation asserting active concealment of construction defects was excluded because it amounted to an allegation of fraud rather than negligence.

Leave to amend was granted except for that paragraph.

The deceased's widow and the estate trustee brought competing motions regarding the administration of the estate.

The widow sought dependant's relief, interim support, preservation of section 72 funds received by the deceased's parents, and an order for the estate trustee to pass accounts.

The estate trustee sought directions to sell estate properties, including the matrimonial home, and to have the widow vacate the premises.

The court ordered an expedited trial of all issues, directed the estate trustee to pass her accounts, allowed the widow to remain in the matrimonial home and collect rent pending trial, permitted the estate trustee to sell other estate properties, and ordered $60,000 of the section 72 funds to be held in trust pending the trial.

In a family law motion between separated parents with ongoing litigation concerning custody, access, and support, the moving party sought orders relating to the child’s schooling, interim spousal support, and funding to retain an expert.

The court held that maintaining stability for the child pending trial was in the child’s best interests and ordered continued enrolment at the Montessori school the child had been attending, with the responding party responsible for the school fees.

The court rejected the moving party’s claim for interim spousal support given the short duration of the marriage and absence of a compensatory or dependency basis for support.

The request for interim funding to retain an expert was also dismissed.

The court encouraged improved parental communication and directed that an expedited trial be scheduled if the issues could not be resolved at settlement.

The applicants brought an application for judicial review to challenge the Chief Coroner's decision not to hold an inquest into the death of their son.

At the hearing, the applicants withdrew their request for an inquest and instead sought an order in the nature of mandamus to compel the Coroner's Office to change the manner of death determination from suicide to undetermined.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants only had standing to challenge the decision not to hold an inquest, and that mandamus could not be used to compel the Coroner to exercise discretionary investigative functions or to usurp the role of a coroner's jury.

Following a family law trial involving custody, support, and equalization issues, the court determined costs that had been reserved from earlier interim motions.

The respondent/wife was largely successful at trial, obtaining sole custody of the children and greater child and spousal support than the applicant/husband had proposed.

Success was divided on the issue of equalization due to insufficient evidence regarding alleged property holdings.

The court discounted the costs claimed for the unsuccessful equalization litigation and awarded a reduced amount of costs.

Costs of $22,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes were ordered payable by the applicant/husband, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

Costs ruling following a summary judgment motion in an insurance dispute.

The moving party successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing claims for wrongful infliction of mental distress, bad faith, and aggravated, punitive, and exemplary damages totaling $1.2 million, but failed to dismiss the primary claim for breach of contract.

The court held that both parties achieved partial success on the motion.

Considering the divided success and the parties’ written submissions, the court exercised its discretion to make no costs award.

Following a family law application involving custody, decision‑making authority, schooling, and child support, the court determined costs.

The court found that success on the underlying application was somewhat divided but that the applicant was more successful overall, having obtained confirmation of sole custody and final decision‑making authority as well as an appropriate level of child support.

The court also noted that some of the relief was effectively consented to by the respondent at the hearing.

After considering the parties’ settlement offers and the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs to the applicant.

Costs were fixed at $6,200 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable forthwith.

The applicant, a nurse, sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding her complaints against her employer hospital.

The Adjudicator had found the hospital failed to accommodate her disability after October 2009 but dismissed claims of discrimination prior to that date, and awarded monetary compensation rather than reinstatement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Adjudicator's decisions on the merits and remedy were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and that there was no denial of procedural fairness in limiting witness testimony to individual rather than systemic claims.