R. Lee Akazaki

This decision resolves a dispute between the Canadian and American branches of the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council regarding the voting membership structure of the Canadian not-for-profit corporation.

The court found that the 2015 by-law, which created two classes of members with the U.S. entity as the sole voting member, remains in force.

The 2021 attempt to change the membership structure via federal articles of continuance was invalid, as it was not authorized by a special resolution of members.

The application by the Canadian company was dismissed, and a declaration was issued confirming the U.S. entity as the sole voting member.

The defendant, Michelangelo Rizzo, moved to stay a Toronto action as an abuse of process due to a partial settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and co-defendant Tara Daniel that was disclosed to him but not to the court.

The plaintiffs sought a right of way over property owned by Rizzo and Daniel, or damages in lieu.

The court found that the procedural agreement did not sufficiently change the litigation alignment to justify a stay, but the plaintiffs' failure to disclose the agreement to the court warranted a costs sanction.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, but costs were awarded to Rizzo.

The plaintiff, TFG Financial Corporation, brought a motion for default judgment seeking unliquidated damages for breach of an equipment lease.

The motion was supported by an affidavit sworn by a lawyer from the plaintiff's firm who lacked personal knowledge of the substantive facts, relying instead on information gleaned from "the file." The court ruled the affidavit inadmissible, finding that it failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for proving unliquidated damages under Rule 19.05, as it largely consisted of hearsay without proper source specification or a deponent with actual corporate knowledge.

Consequently, the motion was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to resubmit with proper evidence.

The applicant, Maria Ramos, sought a declaration regarding the improper conduct of the 2021 Annual General Meeting (AGM) election of York Condominium Corporation No. 25 and an order for the corporation to pay the court-appointed inspector's fees.

The inspector, Eagle Audit, also moved for approval of its reports and payment of its fees.

The court found that the condominium's building manager had mishandled the 2021 election, making the results unreliable.

While declining to issue a declaration invalidating the 2021 AGM due to lack of practical utility, the court approved Eagle Audit's reports and ordered York Condominium Corporation No. 25 to pay Eagle Audit's full invoiced fees of $192,308.79, as well as Maria Ramos's costs on a substantial indemnity scale in the amount of $75,000 and Eagle Audit's costs of $37,151.82.

The court emphasized the importance of election integrity in condominium governance and found the corporation's resistance to the investigation and payment of fees unjustified.

The applicant, Lakshmi Narayan Mandir, sought an interlocutory injunction without notice to prevent protests within 100 metres of its temple.

The temple was scheduled to host a consular camp for elderly Indian nationals to obtain Life Certificates, which are essential for their state pensions.

Previous similar events at other temples had been disrupted by violent clashes between pro-Khalistan Sikh nationalists and pro-India counter-protesters, leading to injuries and property damage.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald and American Cyanamid test for interlocutory injunctions, with the elevated standard for cases involving freedom of expression.

It found a serious issue, irreparable harm to pensioners and congregants if the event was disrupted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The court also determined there was a high probability of harm based on past incidents and threats.

The injunction was granted, establishing a 100-metre perimeter to protect participants and congregants while allowing protesters to express their views from a distance.

Michael Pryce, a licensed paralegal, sought professional negligence coverage under a LawPro policy issued to Jamie Bruce, a lawyer at his firm.

LawPro accepted coverage for the lawyer and the firm but declined coverage for Pryce, who was separately insured under a mandatory Paralegal Professional Liability policy issued by Lloyd’s Underwriters.

The court examined the LawPro policy wording, its commercial background, and the theory of vicarious liability.

It found that the LawPro policy explicitly insures lawyers and their firms only in relation to the professional services of lawyers, not paralegals.

The regulatory scheme mandates separate insurance for lawyers and paralegals, supporting the interpretation that LawPro's policy does not cover paralegals.

The court also rejected the argument that an employer's vicarious liability extends to an insurer's duty to defend an employee not covered by the policy.

The application for coverage was dismissed.

The franchisors sought leave to appeal two arbitral awards: one finding Marcel Hachem and Eastern Canadian Coffee Company Ltd. to be "franchisor's associates" liable for rescission costs, and another regarding costs.

The franchisees sought court enforcement of these awards.

The court dismissed the franchisors' application for leave to appeal the "franchisor's associate" finding, determining it was a question of fact, not law.

The court also dismissed leave to appeal the costs award, finding that while it raised a question of law, it lacked sufficient importance to the parties.

Consequently, the franchisees' application to enforce the arbitral awards was granted.

In competing applications, the parties sought interpretation of a Purchase and Sale Agreement concerning a commercial property.

Integration International Capital Limited (IICL) contended it was entitled to a $293,000 deduction from the purchase price related to replacing a landscaping Letter of Credit (LOC), and sought damages.

Helmsbridge Holdings ULC (Helmsbridge) sought specific performance to compel IICL to replace the LOC, arguing no such deduction was warranted.

The court found that the $293,000 was not an adjustment to the purchase price and that IICL's failure to replace the LOC or provide cash collateral meant it owed the full purchase price.

The court also denied specific performance to Helmsbridge, ruling that damages had not yet accrued and the remedy was not appropriate given the contingent nature of the liability.

Both applications were dismissed.

The applicants sought an order under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to declare the respondents vexatious litigants and preclude further litigation.

The respondents, particularly Evan Argiloff, had engaged in persistent and groundless proceedings, including multiple lawsuits, improper construction liens, and repeated attempts to obtain default judgments, all stemming from a failed business relationship.

The court found that the respondents' conduct was vexatious and persistent, clearly outweighing their right of access to the courts.

The application was granted, declaring the respondents vexatious litigants and imposing restrictions on future proceedings.

This decision addresses an anti-SLAPP motion brought by Global News and its journalists to dismiss a libel suit initiated by Wenbin (Vincent) Ke, an Ontario MPP.

Mr. Ke sued after Global News published stories alleging his involvement in a Chinese government election interference scheme, based on leaks from CSIS agents.

The court found that while the reporting concerned a matter of public interest, there were grounds to believe the plaintiff's libel claim had substantial merit and that the defendants' defences of responsible communication and justification (of a lesser truth) could fail at trial.

The court weighed the public interest in protecting the plaintiff's reputation and ensuring democratic integrity against the freedom of expression, concluding that the public interest in allowing the proceeding to continue outweighed the interest in protecting the expression.

Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The Minister of National Revenue moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) illegally imputed excessive taxable income and instituted wrongful collection measures, causing the principal plaintiff emotional distress and physical harm.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review tax assessments or federal administrative collection measures, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court of Canada and the Federal Court.

Furthermore, the court held that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for intentional infliction of mental distress or misfeasance in public office.

The action was dismissed without leave to amend, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The defendant, Rogers Communication, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from alleged discrimination during a 2015 job interview.

Rogers argued the claim was barred by the two-year limitation period, a prior release from a 2018 human rights complaint, and that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction as there is no common law tort of discrimination for federally regulated entities.

The plaintiff, self-represented, opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to dismiss Rogers' motion, asserting incapacity tolled the limitation period and that the release did not apply to the 2015 incident.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding that the Superior Court has no common law remedy for discrimination against federally regulated entities, and that the action was time-barred as the plaintiff failed to prove incapacity, despite the release being ambiguous regarding the 2015 incident.

The plaintiffs, Catherine Cormier and Carol Weir, brought a civil suit after a car crash.

The case stalled due to concerns that Ms. Weir, 85 and with dementia, required a litigation guardian.

An unopposed motion for a guardian was brought, but an associate judge questioned its necessity.

The plaintiffs then sought a case conference to confirm a settlement and dispense with the guardian.

The court found that no litigation guardian or motion was ever required, as Ms. Weir did not meet the legal test for mental incapacity under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, for the purpose of managing her legal affairs.

The court emphasized that inability to remember accident details or manage daily living does not automatically deprive a litigant of autonomy to instruct counsel and settle.

The settlement was formalized based on the plaintiffs' instructions.

The Law Society of Ontario brought a motion to dismiss Christian Chukwuedozie Chijindu's application to the Superior Court, in which he sought to reinstate his law license after it was revoked by the Law Society Tribunal and all subsequent appeals, including to the Supreme Court of Canada, were exhausted.

Chijindu invoked the Superior Court's jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging unequal treatment and systemic anti-Black racism.

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the Tribunal's revocation or compel the Law Society to reinstate the license, as these remedies are not within the Superior Court's purview, which is limited to appellate or judicial review roles allocated to the Divisional Court.

The motion to dismiss was granted, and Chijindu's application was dismissed with costs awarded to the Law Society.

The defendant FundEX brought a motion for default judgment on its crossclaim against the co-defendants (the Reeves defendants) to recover indemnity for a $2.29 million settlement paid to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' action alleged that Reeves, a FundEX employee, defrauded them of their investments.

FundEX settled the main action and noted the Reeves defendants in default on the crossclaim.

The court dismissed the motion for default judgment because FundEX's crossclaim failed to plead the material facts necessary to claim indemnity for a settlement under section 2 of the Negligence Act.

The dismissal was without prejudice, granting FundEX leave to amend its crossclaim and bring a new motion.

The defendant, Xiao Yao Zi, brought a motion under Rule 21 to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim in a libel action, arguing it failed to disclose a cause of action because the defamatory article, in its certified English translation, did not identify the plaintiff, Yeung & Associates.

The plaintiff contended that despite the literal translation, the Chinese characters and accompanying images (photos of premises, website screenshots, social media posts) clearly identified them.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it was not plain and obvious that the publication did not refer to the plaintiff, emphasizing that identification is a question of fact for trial and does not solely rely on literal translation.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to amend the pleadings to recast conspiracy allegations as malice within the libel claim and to clarify how the Chinese publication identified the plaintiff.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs, including a corporate entity and Dr. Earl Schwartz, brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that a medical office building they co-owned with the defendants (Dr. Martin Schwartz and Susan Schwartz) was a partnership asset, and to compel the defendants to sell their share to the corporate plaintiff at an appraised value.

The defendants denied the existence of a partnership and sought a sale of the property under the Partition Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' partnership claim, finding that the co-owners did not operate the building as a business with a view to profit, but rather primarily for their own professional use at cost.

The court ordered the sale of the property by the defendants on the open market and determined a financial reconciliation for ownership expenses, to be paid from the sale proceeds.

The plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages was also dismissed.

The defendants brought a combined motion to strike out parts of the statement of claim and for security for costs in a libel action.

The court ordered paragraphs 6-9 of the statement of claim struck, as they were deemed attempts to relitigate prior oppression proceedings.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, as the court found the plaintiff had a good case on the merits, assessing it under both Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 12 of the Libel and Slander Act, despite the ambiguity regarding the application of the Act to internet publications.

The corporate defendant's motion for security for costs was also dismissed due to its lack of legal representation.

No costs were awarded due to the divided success of the motion.

The defendant, Springer Nature, brought a motion under Rule 21 to strike the statement of claim filed by the self-represented plaintiff, Ahmad Mohammad, without leave to amend, on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff sought a court order requiring the defendant, a leading academic journal, to retract a 1997 paper he believed was founded on fraudulent research, which caused him "extreme annoyance" and a "mental tort" leading to his expulsion from his Ph.D. program.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's complaint did not disclose a recognized cause of action, as academic controversies are not justiciable in this context, and his "annoyance" or "mental tort" did not constitute a legally recognized injury in tort law.

Furthermore, the alleged injury was too remote and not foreseeable under the objective "ordinary person" standard for mental harm.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The applicant condominium corporation sought compliance orders against a unit owner for unauthorized video surveillance in the mailroom and abusive communications directed at staff and board members.

The respondent admitted to the actions but argued they were provoked by election interference (vandalism of campaign posters) and a prolonged lack of hot water in her unit, which impacted her and her spouse's health due to pre-existing medical conditions.

The court found the respondent's conduct contravened the Condominium Act but acknowledged the significant provocation.

While granting the compliance orders, the court denied the applicant's request for full indemnity costs, citing shared responsibility and the more serious nature of the wrongs committed against the respondent.