Robert C. Watt

The plaintiff moved to amend its statement of claim to add the supervising lawyer of the defendant paralegal as a party defendant.

The proposed new defendant and the paralegal defendants opposed the motion, arguing the claim was untenable, statute-barred, and prejudicial, and requested a mid-hearing adjournment.

The court denied the adjournment as procedurally unfair.

The court granted leave to amend, finding the proposed pleading disclosed a tenable cause of action for negligent legal advice and that the limitations defence could not be fairly decided on the existing evidentiary record.

The amendment was granted without prejudice to the new defendant pursuing a limitations defence at trial.

The defendant moved to set aside a default judgment and a Registrar's dismissal order for delay.

The plaintiff had obtained default judgment after serving the statement of claim by substitute service to addresses where the defendant did not reside.

The defendant discovered the judgment years later when selling a property and paying off a writ of execution.

The court found the default judgment was irregularly obtained because the defendant never received the claim.

Alternatively, the court held it was in the interests of justice to set aside the judgment, as the defendant had an arguable defence of forgery.

The default judgment, noting in default, and dismissal order were set aside, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the writ discharge funds into court.

This uncontested trial endorsement addresses the division of net family property, responsibility for joint lines of credit, and spousal support following the separation of Maria Teresa Del Grosso and Peter (Pietro) Del Grosso.

The court found insufficient evidence to order an equalization payment or to require the respondent to pay off joint lines of credit, due to lack of financial disclosure.

The applicant was awarded spousal support based on imputed income and her demonstrated need, as well as costs.

The decision follows recent appellate guidance on the necessity of adequate evidence for property division.

This uncontested trial endorsement addresses property and spousal support claims following the separation of Maria Teresa Del Grosso and Peter (Pietro) Del Grosso after 35 years of marriage.

The court identifies evidentiary deficiencies regarding the applicant’s claims for equalization of net family property and reimbursement of interest payments on joint lines of credit, as well as the quantum of spousal support.

The trial is adjourned pending further affidavit evidence.

The plaintiff challenged the 2016 will of his deceased sister, which left her entire estate to her stepson (the defendant) and transferred her home into joint tenancy with him.

The plaintiff argued the deceased lacked testamentary capacity due to cognitive decline and delusions, and was unduly influenced by the defendant.

The defendant counterclaimed for the return of $247,322.95 that the deceased had transferred to the plaintiff and another sibling in 2014, alleging it was taken without her knowledge.

The court dismissed both the claim and the counterclaim.

The court found the deceased had the requisite capacity to execute the 2016 will and property transfer, relying on the assessments of her treating physician and a geriatric specialist.

The court also found no evidence of undue influence.

The counterclaim was dismissed as the court found it unnecessary to determine the exact reasons for the 2014 transfer, concluding it did not need to be undone.

The court issued supplementary reasons on consent of the parties to amend paragraph 246 of the original trial decision.

The amended order declares the life insurance certificates in full force and effect, dismisses the defendants' counterclaim, and orders the defendants to pay the plaintiff $8,543.82 for mortgage payments, the full balance of the mortgage, $10,000 in mental distress damages, and $150,000 in punitive damages.

Following a successful trial where the plaintiff was awarded coverage under two creditor protection insurance policies, mental distress damages, and punitive damages, the court determined the costs of the action.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date the defendants' amended counterclaim was ordered to issue, and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter due to the defendants' reprehensible litigation conduct, unproven allegations of fraud, and failure to accept a reasonable offer to settle.

The plaintiff was awarded $260,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff, a former high school student, brought an action for damages against her former music teacher, Royce Galon Williamson, for sexual abuse, and against the Trillium Lakelands District School Board (the School Board) for vicarious liability and direct negligence/breach of fiduciary duty.

Williamson did not attend the trial, and his statement of defence was struck.

The court found Williamson liable for sexual assault, battery, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The School Board was found vicariously liable for Williamson's conduct and directly liable for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty due to its inadequate response to the plaintiff's disclosure, including failure to provide support and immediately remove Williamson from the school.

Damages were awarded for general and aggravated damages, loss of competitive advantage, past and future care expenses, and punitive damages against Williamson.

The applicant brought an application to remove an exhaust vent encroaching on her property.

The respondents removed the encroachment before the hearing, leaving only the issue of costs.

To determine costs, the court assessed whether the applicant would have succeeded on the merits.

The court interpreted a prior Resolution Agreement between the parties and found it did not grant an easement for the encroachment.

Concluding the applicant would have been successful, the court awarded her costs of $8,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The applicant mother sought to increase child support from $311 monthly to $650 monthly based on an imputed income of $71,300 for the respondent father, a self-employed contractor.

The respondent opposed the increase and argued his income was accurately reflected in his tax returns.

The court found that the respondent had unreported income based on discrepancies between bank deposits and reported gross income, as well as evidence of debt repayment inconsistent with his claimed income.

The court imputed annual income of $71,114 to the respondent and ordered child support of $648 monthly commencing April 1, 2015, with arrears to be paid at $100 monthly.

The plaintiff, Lidia Kuleshnyk, brought a motion seeking an order to preserve future vendor take-back mortgage payments from the sale of property owned by the defendant, Herta Kuleshnyk, by having them paid into court.

The motion was brought pursuant to Rules 45.01 and 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied the three-part test from Sadie Moranis Realty Corp. v. 1667038 Ontario Inc., finding that the plaintiff established a claim to a specific identifiable fund (future mortgage payments) and a serious issue to be tried regarding her entitlement under a 2009 agreement.

While there was no direct evidence of dissipation, the court found a real concern given the defendant's prior actions (reverse mortgage without knowledge).

The court ordered the final mortgage payment of approximately $1,581,000 due on April 8, 2019, to be paid into court, allowing the defendant to retain earlier payments and funds held in trust to manage tax obligations.

No costs were awarded as the result was divided.

The applicant sought to have a holographic will, allegedly made by his deceased brother, accepted as the last will and testament over a previously probated 1995 will.

The applicant had previously attempted to amend a statement of claim in a related action to plead this new cause of action, but that motion was dismissed by Lederman J. on the basis that the claim was statute-barred and the applicant failed to demonstrate due diligence in discovering the will.

The court held that the current application raised the exact same question decided by Lederman J. Applying the doctrine of issue estoppel, the court found the applicant was precluded from relitigating whether his claims were statute-barred.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend his statement of claim and adjourn the trial.

He sought to add a new cause of action based on a holograph will he claimed to have recently discovered, which would entitle him to the entirety of his deceased brother's estate.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendments raised a new, statute-barred cause of action.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate a triable issue of discoverability, as his explanation for misplacing and finding the will lacked due diligence.

Furthermore, the court held that granting the amendment would cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

Three defendants were charged with making false or misleading statements to insurers under the Insurance Act of Ontario.

Aksana Miakouchkina, operating manager of Ontario Disability Management Inc., was charged with knowingly making false statements on treatment plan forms (OCF-18s) submitted to insurers.

The corporation was charged on a vicarious liability basis.

Gregori Miakouchkine, the sole director and president, was charged with failing to take reasonable care to prevent the corporation from committing the offence.

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts and acquitted all three defendants.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing his claim for $14,000 against a law firm.

The appellant alleged the money was a retainer for unprovided services, while the law firm maintained $9,000 was received for rent owed by a sub-tenant, who corroborated this account.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The applicant sought an order declaring a codicil to a deceased testator’s will invalid and removing the respondent as executor and trustee.

The impugned codicil purported to replace the executors named in the will with the respondent as sole executor and trustee.

The court considered whether the codicil had been properly executed and whether suspicious circumstances existed surrounding its preparation.

Applying the principles from Vout v. Hay, the court held that the absence of affidavits of execution and inconsistencies in the respondent’s conduct raised significant suspicious circumstances that were not explained.

The court therefore concluded the codicil was invalid and granted further relief removing the respondent from any role in administering the estate.

The applicants, joint tenants of a residential property, sought an order under the Partition Act authorizing the sale of the property and division of the proceeds.

The respondent, the former spouse or common-law partner of one applicant and residing in the property with their children, agreed to the sale but sought to have the entire proceeds held in trust pending anticipated claims relating to family property, businesses, and support.

The court held that the respondent had not commenced any proceedings asserting such claims and therefore had no basis for pre-judgment or pre-litigation security against the other applicant’s share of the proceeds.

The court authorized the sale of the property and ordered that only the applicant spouse’s half of the proceeds be held in trust, with the co-owner sibling free to receive her share.

The balance of the application relating to financial claims between the spouses was converted to an action.

The applicant corporation, authorized to wind up its affairs, sought directions on the distribution of its assets to shareholders.

A shareholder brought a companion motion seeking a reference to a Master to identify shareholders and for an accounting, which was dismissed as the corporation had provided sufficient evidence of its process.

The court granted a sealing order over the confidential Shareholder Lists, applying the Sierra Club test.

The court approved an initial distribution of $1 million but required further court approval for subsequent distributions, and directed the corporation to continue investing funds in an interest-bearing account.

A former contractor sought payment of unpaid commissions and bonuses allegedly owed under a consulting agreement containing an entire agreement clause requiring written amendments.

The defendant employer argued that the parties had subsequently altered their compensation structure through conduct and oral arrangements.

The court held that the parties had mutually abandoned key compensation provisions of the written agreement and implemented a different structure through invoices and payments over time.

The plaintiff knowingly waived his contractual rights and could not revert to the original terms after accepting the revised arrangement.

The action for unpaid compensation was dismissed and the defendant’s counterclaim for solicitation was also dismissed for lack of proof.