Richard Douglas Butler

The plaintiffs sought damages and declarations regarding environmental contamination at 65 Heward Avenue.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, arguing that the plaintiffs knew of the contamination upon purchase, the limitation period had expired, and the claim lacked sufficient particulars for negligence, strict liability, and statutory claims under the Environmental Protection Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants were not barred by delay or pleading over, the plaintiffs' knowledge of contamination was not fatal, the limitation period issue required evidence, and the claim provided sufficient particulars for all causes of action, including novel applications of strict liability.

The plaintiffs sought damages and declarations against multiple defendants, including Akzo Nobel N.V. (NV), for environmental contamination at 65 Heward Avenue, Toronto.

NV, a Netherlands corporation, moved under Rule 21.01(3)(a) to dismiss the action against it for lack of jurisdiction, arguing no real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish any presumptive connecting factors (domicile, carrying on business, tort committed, or contract made in Ontario) linking NV to the province.

The court rejected the group enterprise theory and the argument that assuming liabilities or providing indemnities constituted carrying on business in Ontario for jurisdictional purposes.

Consequently, the claim against Akzo Nobel N.V. was stayed/dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking validation of service of their Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim and motion record on Akzo Nobel N.V. (a Dutch company), leave to issue a Further Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, and an extension of time to serve the Further Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim on Akzo Nobel N.V. Akzo Nobel N.V. did not oppose the motion, but its affiliates (the Akzo Affiliates) did.

The court granted leave to amend the claim and an extension of time for service, finding no prejudice to Akzo Nobel N.V. and a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The request for validation of service was dismissed, as the motion record was found to be properly served by mail under the Hague Convention and Rules, and validation of the statement of claim was inappropriate given the Hague Convention's complete code for service.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

Following a trial where plaintiffs obtained $40,000 in damages and injunctive relief, this endorsement addresses costs.

The plaintiffs sought over $100,000 in costs, while defendants argued for proportionality given the damages awarded were within Simplified Procedure limits.

The court considered the plaintiffs' primary objective of injunctive relief, which necessitated the ordinary procedure, and their unaccepted offers to settle.

Despite the high costs relative to damages, the court found the plaintiffs' litigation conduct reasonable and awarded them $90,000 in all-inclusive costs, declining substantial indemnity but recognizing the legitimacy of the expenses incurred.

Sarah Davison pleaded guilty to multiple drug trafficking and possession charges, including fentanyl and cocaine, and several Criminal Code offences.

The Crown sought a 6-year sentence, while the defence sought 4 years.

The court found Davison to be a mid-level dealer, distinguishing her from an "addict dealer" as characterized in prior case law.

Applying principles of denunciation and deterrence, while also considering rehabilitation, the court imposed a 6-year concurrent sentence for the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) trafficking and possession for purpose offences, 5 months concurrent for simple possession, and 30 days concurrent for the Criminal Code charges.

The accused, a paraplegic, was charged with sexual assault against his Personal Support Worker (PSW).

The complainant alleged the accused groped and kissed her during a routine morning visit, which the accused denied.

Applying the W.D. credibility analysis, the court found the accused not credible due to evasive testimony regarding his physical capabilities.

The complainant was found credible and reliable despite minor inconsistencies, with the court noting her demeanor, lack of exaggeration, and absence of a financial motive to fabricate.

The court emphasized the cautious use of demeanor and post-offence conduct as credibility factors.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

The Appellant, Jeff McClennan, appealed his convictions for Impaired Driving and Over Eighty Care and Control.

The appeal was based on the trial judge's alleged palpable and overriding errors in findings of fact and credibility regarding the "realistic risk of danger" element of care and control.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge made significant factual errors by misstating evidence and taking the Appellant's testimony out of context, which directly impacted the determination of realistic risk.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction overturned, and a re-trial ordered.

The appellant appealed a decision of a Master who declined to proceed with a reference related to a judgment for partition and sale of several apartment properties.

After obtaining the judgment, the appellant privately sold its minority interest to the majority owner outside the reference process and removed the instrument registering the judgment for sale.

The appellant later sought to continue the reference solely to pursue an accounting against the property manager for alleged overcharged management fees.

The court held that the reference was governed by the judgment for sale and that the accounting was merely ancillary to the sale process.

Because the appellant’s private transaction rendered the judgment for sale moot, the Master correctly found that she lacked jurisdiction to continue the reference.

The appeal was dismissed.