Richard K. MacGregor

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging the respondent unit owner breached a settlement agreement by continuing to cause excessive noise, primarily from late-night social gatherings.

The respondent denied the noise was excessive, arguing the building had inadequate sound insulation and that he also experienced noise from neighbouring units.

The Tribunal found the respondent breached the settlement agreement and ordered him to respect the quiet enjoyment of others.

However, the Tribunal also ordered the applicant to investigate the respondent's complaints regarding noise transmission into his unit.

The respondent was ordered to pay half of the applicant's legal costs.

The appellant, Casey Zizek, appealed the dismissal of a motion to stay proceedings.

The underlying action involved an alleged fraud by the defendants against the respondent school board.

The school board had settled with other defendants via a Mary Carter or Pierringer agreement but failed to immediately disclose this to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by not applying the principle that immediate disclosure of such agreements is mandatory and that failure to do so constitutes an abuse of process, regardless of prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, and the proceeding was stayed.

The applicant unit owner sought various condominium records, including legal invoices and proxy forms, which the respondent condominium corporation initially refused to provide, citing alleged breaches of a prior Tribunal order.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to all requested records and that the respondent had no reasonable excuse for its initial refusal.

The Tribunal permitted the respondent to minimally redact the records for solicitor-client privilege and statutory privacy exemptions, and approved a reasonable fee of $1,070 for the redaction process.

Due to the respondent's unjustified refusal, the Tribunal ordered a $2,000 penalty against the respondent, but declined to award costs to either party.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for an interlocutory compliance order and restraining orders against a unit owner and its principals/agents.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants engaged in a multi-year pattern of threatening, abusive, and harassing behaviour towards the board of directors, property management, and other unit owners, including threats of litigation and physical intimidation.

The court found that the defendants' conduct violated section 117 of the Condominium Act, constituted workplace harassment under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and was oppressive under section 135 of the Condominium Act.

The court granted interlocutory orders restraining the defendants from further harassment and from soliciting proxies.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their defamation action as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The action arose from allegedly defamatory statements made by the respondents in an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) pleading.

The motion judge found the expression related to a matter of public interest and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by characterizing the expression too broadly and by concluding that the specific impugned statements, which concerned a private dispute between competitors, related to a matter of public interest.

The Court clarified that purely private disputes, even if involving allegations of tortious conduct, do not automatically qualify as matters of public interest for anti-SLAPP purposes.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation against three properties.

The defendants consented to a CPL against one property and the plaintiffs withdrew their claim against another.

The remaining issue was whether a CPL should be granted against the third property.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the third property, finding that the plaintiffs had signed a release, the limitation period had likely expired, the property was not unique, and the claim was essentially for the return of a deposit.

The plaintiff's action for damages in excess of $5,000,000 was dismissed after a multi-week trial.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $232,663.

The plaintiff argued for no costs or a significant reduction due to his limited ability to pay and alleged duplication of effort by the defendants' counsel over the 20-year litigation history.

The court rejected the duplication argument, noting the plaintiff's responsibility for the delay, and fixed the defendants' partial indemnity costs at $225,000, considering the complexity of the case and the amount claimed.

The plaintiff, a former lawyer, sued the investigating police officer, the police services board, and the municipality for negligent investigation after he was charged with fraud, perjury, and obstructing justice.

The criminal charges were ultimately not pursued after a preliminary inquiry was terminated due to an unsworn Information.

The plaintiff claimed the charges destroyed his law practice and caused significant financial losses.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the police officer's investigation met the standard of a reasonable police officer and that there were reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges.

Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's financial losses were caused by other personal and business factors, not the police investigation.

The appellant Dana Canada Inc. Filter Division appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice quashing four subpoenas directed to witnesses.

The motion judge had found it extremely unlikely that the witnesses would provide evidence demonstrating significant prejudice to the appellant's case.

The Court of Appeal determined that the order quashing the subpoenas was interlocutory rather than final, and therefore the proper route of appeal was through the Divisional Court with leave under the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was quashed and costs were fixed at $7,500 all inclusive payable to the respondents.