Robert John Morris

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The Richmond Hill Zone Hockey Association (RHZHA) sought an urgent interlocutory injunction against the Ontario Minor Hockey Association (OMHA) and the Ontario Hockey Federation (OHF).

The RHZHA aimed to prevent the OMHA from dissolving its AAA Level hockey zone and to compel the OHF to reopen its application to transfer membership to the Greater Toronto Hockey League (GTHL).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the RHZHA would suffer irreparable harm, much of it had already occurred due to delay.

The court also determined that the balance of convenience favored the OMHA's decision to consolidate zones for the overall benefit of minor hockey, and that the Hockey Canada National Appeals Committee's adverse decision on the OHF's policy interpretation weakened the applicant's case for a mandatory injunction.

The applicant minor hockey association sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent governing body from re-allocating minor hockey programming contrary to a 2018 agreement.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding whether reasonable notice of termination was required, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm.

The court found that any financial losses were quantifiable and compensable in damages, and the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction.

The motion was dismissed.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant had not paid rent for 18 months, accumulating over $30,000 in arrears, and appealed the eviction order, which triggered an automatic stay.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was an abuse of process designed to 'game the system' by securing a stay without any intention of paying rent.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, the stay was lifted, and the tenant was ordered to vacate the premises.

The appellant appealed a sentence of 20 months imposed by the trial judge for his involvement in a commercial conspiracy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding that the trial judge properly considered all relevant sentencing factors, including the commercial nature of the enterprise and the appellant's level of involvement.

The court also found that the trial judge adequately considered the parity principle in distinguishing the appellant's sentence from that of a co-conspirator who received 30 months.

The plaintiffs, subsequent encumbrancers, sued the defendant first mortgagee for an improvident sale and an accounting of proceeds following a power of sale.

The action was administratively dismissed by the Registrar.

The plaintiffs moved to set aside the dismissal.

The court reviewed the history of the mortgage transactions, noted the defendant's failure to provide a meaningful accounting, and applied the contextual approach for setting aside administrative dismissals.

Finding a plausible explanation for the delay and a genuine issue regarding the property's value, the court set aside the dismissal and restored the action to active status.

An appeal concerning the estate of Paul Penner, who died in March 2013.

A separation agreement required Penner to maintain a $150,000 life insurance policy designating his ex-wife, Pauline McKenny, as beneficiary, with McKenny having a first charge against the estate if the policy lapsed.

Penner failed to pay premiums and the policy lapsed before his death.

McKenny commenced an action more than two years after Penner's death, which would normally be statute-barred under section 38(3) of the Trustee Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment applied to the estate trustee's conduct, tolling the limitation period until at least September 25, 2013, thereby allowing McKenny's claim to proceed.

The appellant, Duca Financial Services Credit Union Ltd., appealed a Master's order declining to recuse himself from hearing a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of an action.

Duca Financial alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the Master's case management actions and comments during the recusal motion.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias was established, and affirmed the Master's decision to continue hearing the motion.

Following two trials in a commercial dispute, the successful party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court held that allegations by the opposing party that a shareholders’ agreement was a fraudulent forgery were unsupported and justified elevated costs to the end of the first trial.

Costs thereafter were awarded on a partial indemnity basis because the second trial concerned only the quantum payable.

The court reviewed objections to time entries and disbursements and rejected most reductions, finding the work and rates generally reasonable.

A global adjustment was made to account for limited overlap between successive counsel.

Following earlier reasons ordering a buy‑out of a shareholder’s interests in two corporations for $640,000, the court addressed the appropriate start date for pre‑judgment interest.

The court reviewed the procedural history and determined that the buy‑out claim had not been pursued at the first trial and only crystallized when the court permitted the claim to proceed on April 11, 2013.

Accordingly, the cause of action for the buy‑out arose on that date.

Pre‑judgment interest was ordered to run from April 11, 2013 at the applicable quarterly rate.

Post‑judgment interest was set at 2% per annum.

In supplemental reasons following an earlier declaration that a shareholders’ agreement was valid and binding, the court determined the price for a compulsory buyout of a 20% share interest in two corporations holding a commercial property.

The principal issue was whether the minority shareholder’s entitlement should be reduced by the outstanding mortgage and expenses advanced by the majority shareholder after the business venture failed.

Applying contractual interpretation principles and reading the indemnity clause in light of the agreement as a whole, the court held the shares were allocated free and clear of encumbrances and that the majority shareholder had assumed responsibility for the property-related liabilities.

The buyout was therefore fixed at 20% of the agreed $3.2 million property value, or $640,000, with costs to the successful party.

Sentencing for a mid-level participant in a large-scale marijuana grow operation who was convicted of production, possession for the purpose of trafficking, conspiracy to produce marijuana, and forgery.

The court rejected the Crown's characterization of the offender as the operating mind and found he acted primarily as a broker, though with significant moral culpability.

Mitigating factors included the absence of a criminal record, lack of profit, inability to pay a fine, and the court's finding that the undercover operation stimulated the enterprise, though not amounting to entrapment.

A reformatory sentence of two years less one day, reduced by 45 days' pre-trial custody credit to 22 ½ months, was imposed concurrently, with no fine and ancillary DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

The accused applied under s. 462.34(4) of the Criminal Code for the release of restrained assets to fund legal representation for pending drug charges involving large-scale marijuana grow operations.

The accused’s legal aid certificate had been cancelled after Legal Aid concluded he failed to fully disclose his financial circumstances.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the accused had no available assets apart from property already restrained by court order and that he possessed a proprietary interest in those assets.

After considering the legal aid tariff and the anticipated length and complexity of the trial, the court authorized the release of restrained funds to pay reasonable legal expenses at the legal aid rate.

The alternative Rowbotham application for state-funded counsel was dismissed as unnecessary.

The applicant corporation sought a final order approving a plan of arrangement under s. 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act involving an exchange of interests with another corporation.

The court reviewed the requirements for approving a corporate arrangement as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada, including whether the arrangement served a valid business purpose, complied with procedural safeguards, and was fair and reasonable to affected stakeholders.

Evidence showed the transaction resulted from arm’s‑length negotiations, received an independent fairness opinion, and was overwhelmingly approved by shareholders with dissent rights available.

The court found the arrangement structure appropriate given the complexity of the multi‑step transaction and determined the statutory “not practicable” requirement was satisfied.

The arrangement was approved as fair and reasonable.

The applicant sought costs on a complete indemnity basis for steps taken to compel the respondents' compliance with a consent order.

The respondents had paid the outstanding amounts prior to the final motion hearing, which was subsequently dismissed.

The court found the applicant was entitled to costs for steps taken prior to the respondents' compliance, but not for the unnecessary second appearance.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs, set-off against the respondents' costs for the second appearance, resulting in a net award of $14,500 to the applicant.

Competing applications sought declarations regarding when interest began accruing on a promissory note issued as part of consideration for a receiver-approved asset sale.

The note holder argued that interest accrued from the asset purchase agreement’s final closing date, while the issuer sought rectification of the note to reflect a court‑approved amended form that tied interest payments to the note issuance date.

The court held the issuer had mistakenly issued an outdated form of note contrary to the prior court order approving the amended form.

Rectification was granted so the issued note conformed to the court‑approved amended note.

Interest therefore began accruing only once the note was issued following the priorities order identifying the noteholder and principal amount.

The applicant corporation sought a final order approving a plan of arrangement under s. 182 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act in connection with the acquisition of all outstanding shares by a subsidiary of the purchaser corporation for cash consideration.

The court applied the framework from BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, requiring satisfaction that the transaction constituted a statutory arrangement, that procedural requirements were met, that the application was brought in good faith, and that the arrangement was fair and reasonable.

Evidence demonstrated a robust sale process, board oversight through a special committee, independent financial advice, and a significant premium to market value.

Shareholders overwhelmingly approved the arrangement, no dissent rights were exercised, and no opposition appeared.

The court concluded that the arrangement served a valid business purpose and fairly balanced the interests of affected stakeholders.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's disposition regarding custody and access of three young girls.

She argued the trial judge failed to address her alternative proposal for sole custody if she returned to Toronto from Ottawa, and erred in finding she would not facilitate the respondent father's access.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had not put forward a parenting plan predicated on foregoing a move to Ottawa, and that the trial judge's factual findings regarding her inability to facilitate access were well supported by the evidence.

The federal government amended the Canada Pension Plan to extend survivor benefits to same-sex partners, but limited eligibility to those whose partners died on or after January 1, 1998, and precluded payments for months before July 2000.

A class action challenged these temporal limits.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the temporal limits infringed section 15(1) of the Charter and were not justified under section 1.

However, the Court denied fully retroactive relief, finding that the prior exclusion of same-sex partners was based on a reasonable understanding of the law before the Court's landmark decision in M. v. H., and that the government acted in good faith.

The Court also held that estates do not have standing to advance section 15(1) claims.

Arrêt constitutionnel majeur portant sur l'exclusion des couples de même sexe de la définition du mariage aux fins de la common law.

La Cour a appliqué l'analyse du par. 15(1) de la Charte et conclu que la définition hétérosexuelle du mariage portait atteinte à la dignité et aux droits à l'égalité des couples de même sexe, sans justification au regard de l'article premier.

La Cour a rejeté les prétentions fondées sur la liberté de religion et l'égalité religieuse de l'église intervenante, concluant que l'affaire visait l'institution juridique du mariage plutôt que sa dimension religieuse.

Comme réparation, la Cour a déclaré invalide la définition existante dans la mesure où elle contenait les mots « d'un homme et d'une femme », l'a reformulée immédiatement comme l'union de deux personnes, et a ordonné la délivrance et l'enregistrement des mariages visés.