Robert L. Maranger

A vendor sued purchasers for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale after they refused to close on a residential property.

The purchasers discovered before closing that the property had been constructed on top of a discontinued landfill site and alleged negligent misrepresentation in the vendor’s Seller Property Information Statement (SPIS).

The court held that once a vendor completes an SPIS, the doctrine of caveat emptor does not protect misleading answers.

The vendor’s responses regarding environmental contamination and landfill activity were misleading and constituted negligent misrepresentation.

The purchasers were entitled to rescind the agreement and recover certain expenses incurred in reliance on the misrepresentation.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend the statement of claim in an action against a condominium corporation arising from water infiltration into a condominium unit.

The proposed amendments expanded the claim from a single water event to ongoing infiltration issues and added claims for breach of fiduciary duty and oppression under the Condominium Act.

The defendant opposed the amendments on limitation, pleading sufficiency, and abuse of process grounds.

The court applied Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and held that any prejudice could be compensated through costs or adjournment.

Leave to amend was granted, with terms allowing the defendant to file a fresh defence and conduct further discovery.

Sentencing following guilty pleas to multiple drug trafficking offences and participation in a criminal organization.

The offender had no prior criminal record and no substance abuse history but admitted engaging in trafficking heroin, cocaine, and marijuana solely for profit.

The parties jointly proposed an eight‑year penitentiary sentence.

The principal dispute concerned credit for 1,335 days spent on stringent bail conditions prior to sentencing.

The court held that stringent bail conditions can be considered a mitigating factor but the appropriate credit is discretionary; in the circumstances the offender received two years credit, resulting in six years of imprisonment.

The Crown applied under Criminal Code forfeiture provisions seeking an order that $39,680 seized from a residence be forfeited as proceeds of crime following the respondent’s conviction for offences connected to a drug trafficking organization.

The respondent argued the funds belonged to his parents, who were innocent third parties, and sought the return of the money to them.

The court held that although circumstantial evidence could support an inference that the funds were proceeds of crime, credible testimony from the respondent’s parents provided an equally plausible explanation that the money represented long-term household savings.

The Crown therefore failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the funds were proceeds of crime.

The court found the parents were lawful owners and innocent of complicity and ordered the funds returned to them under s. 462.41(3) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant sought an order appointing a mediator/arbitrator under a construction contract dispute clause arising from a fire that occurred more than a decade after project completion.

The respondent argued that the dispute was properly before the courts, particularly as the applicant had commenced a multi-party action against numerous defendants not bound by the arbitration clause.

The court held that the arbitration provisions were intended to operate during the course of the construction project and that ordering arbitration would create parallel proceedings and potential prejudice to other parties.

Relying on prior authority addressing similar procedural conflicts, the court found that the applicant could not pursue arbitration against one party while simultaneously litigating broader claims in court.

The application was dismissed.

In a mutual legal assistance proceeding, the applicants sought disclosure of the requesting state's Request to Send and leave to cross-examine the RCMP affiant who obtained the search warrant.

Applying the Larosa framework, the court held the allegations of misleading or false information were not capable of supporting the remedy sought because the remaining affidavit evidence would still justify issuance of the warrant.

The court further found no air of reality to the allegation that the requesting state deliberately misled the court, and no tenable allegation of mala fides was established.

Both preliminary applications were dismissed.

The plaintiff, a former part-time housekeeper for OLG at the Rideau Carleton Raceway, commenced an action alleging workplace harassment, constructive discharge, and defamation.

The defendant Rideau Carleton Raceway brought a motion to strike the statement of claim.

The court granted the motion, finding that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action, lacked material facts, and were frivolous and vexatious.

The action against the moving party was dismissed without costs.

The applicant challenged the retrospective application of the 1997 and 2011 amendments to the faint hope provisions governing reduction of parole ineligibility for murder.

The court held that the proper analytical framework was the retrospective punishment analysis from Whaling, not the Rodgers test for discrete sanctions.

It concluded that the amendments did not increase punishment, did not thwart any settled expectation of liberty, and merely altered the procedure by which the applicant could seek a chance at earlier parole.

The constitutional application was dismissed, and the parole ineligibility reduction application was directed to proceed under s. 745.61 as amended in 2011.

The appellant appealed her conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing eyewitness identification evidence, rendered an unreasonable verdict, and provided insufficient reasons.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were clear, logical, and demonstrated an awareness of the frailties of eyewitness evidence.

The court concluded the identification evidence, supported by circumstantial factors such as the driver's physical description and a distinct limp, reasonably supported the conviction.

Dans cette motion interlocutoire, la partie requérante demandait principalement la radiation de la déclaration en raison d’un manquement à un engagement de conserver des courriels produits lors de l’enquête préalable, ou subsidiairement des ordonnances de préservation documentaire.

Le tribunal a conclu que le manquement résultait vraisemblablement de l’inattention ou de l’inadvertance plutôt que d’une inconduite intentionnelle, et a refusé la réparation draconienne sollicitée.

Compte tenu de la complexité de l’action relative à un déficit allégué dans un régime de retraite et de l’étendue temporelle des faits, le tribunal a néanmoins ordonné la conservation et la communication aux fins d’examen de comptes courriel pertinents et a prolongé l’enquête préalable à un total de vingt‑quatre heures.

Le succès ayant été mitigé, le tribunal s’est dit fortement enclin à n’adjuger aucuns dépens.

The accused was charged with possession of cannabis marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and unlawful production of marijuana arising from a grow operation in an Ottawa apartment.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including surveillance, the accused's key access to the apartment, suspicious bag movements, and grow-related material found at a separate residence.

The court reviewed the law of personal, constructive, and joint possession and the requirement that guilt be the only reasonable inference available on circumstantial evidence.

In light of defence evidence from the tenant claiming exclusive responsibility for the grow operation, the court held that a reasonable doubt remained as to the accused's knowledge and control.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

Following a one‑day family trial, the applicant sought a divorce and equalization of net family property after a long marriage.

The respondent, self‑represented, did not file a net family property statement but alleged that the applicant had stolen approximately $500,000 during the marriage and had sold a beehive business and equipment for an unreasonably low value.

The court found no evidence supporting the allegation of theft and declined to speculate regarding decades‑old financial transactions.

The court also accepted the applicant’s valuation and sale price of the beehive business based on evidence that the enterprise had been declining and the equipment was largely dilapidated.

An equalization payment of $23,134.04 was ordered and a divorce was granted subject to filing the required documentation.

Two accused were tried on multiple counts arising from a lengthy police investigation into a large-scale drug trafficking operation involving cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, cannabis resin, and MDMA.

The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance, search warrants, seized narcotics and cash from a suspected stash house, and evidence of the accused attending the location and interacting with suspected suppliers.

The court held that conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking and conspiracy required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the drugs found in a locked room of the stash house.

Although surveillance and other evidence raised suspicion, the court concluded that reasonable doubt remained regarding whether either accused had knowledge and control of the narcotics, particularly in light of testimony explaining the presence of keys and frequent attendance at the residence.

One accused was acquitted on all counts, while the other was acquitted of the major trafficking counts but convicted of a separate marijuana trafficking charge.

The court determined interim child and spousal support pending trial in a family law proceeding.

The parties’ children resided with the respondent in the matrimonial home while the applicant paid the mortgage, taxes, and insurance after separation.

The court held that these payments, exceeding the Child Support Guidelines amount, satisfied the applicant’s interim child support obligation.

The court also ordered interim spousal support of $1,250 per month, imputing income to the respondent based on her skills and education despite claims of disability.

The interim order was intended to remain in effect until trial, subject to variation if the trial did not proceed as scheduled.

The respondent brought a motion for interim spousal support in a family law proceeding.

The court considered the parties’ income positions and competing Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines calculations.

The judge found the evidence supported the payor spouse’s annual employment income of approximately $56,000–$58,000 and imputed $7,500 annual income to the recipient spouse.

Considering the length of the relationship, the recipient’s modest financial needs, and her interim occupancy of the matrimonial home, the court ordered interim spousal support of $1,500 per month retroactive to May 25, 2014.

Arrears of $3,000 were to be paid from the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

The responding party brought a motion for security for costs in a family law proceeding where the applicant sought to set aside a comprehensive separation agreement governing child and spousal support.

The agreement had been negotiated with counsel and based on an income assessment provided by the applicant’s own expert.

The court found the applicant’s claim had little chance of success and that the evidence did not support the allegation that the respondent’s conduct caused the applicant’s reduced income.

The court further found that the applicant lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

Security for costs was therefore ordered.

Following the dismissal of an appeal under the Building Code Act, the successful respondents sought costs.

The appellant argued no costs should be awarded or they should be limited to $10,000.

The Divisional Court found no reason to depart from the general rule that successful parties are entitled to partial indemnity costs, but found the amounts sought excessive.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $15,000 to the Township and Kopp, and $7,500 to Lystek.

The successful defendants/appellants sought costs of $63,158 following an appeal that set aside an order and a certificate of pending litigation.

The Divisional Court found the requested amount excessive and fixed costs at $45,000 all-inclusive for the motion to set aside the certificate, the motion for leave to appeal, and the appeal itself.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking recognition and enforcement in Ontario of an Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench custody order requiring the return of the child and establishing shared custody.

The respondent opposed recognition and brought a cross‑motion to transfer the proceeding to Haileybury, Ontario, and requested that an Ontario court assume jurisdiction over custody and access.

The court held that a triable issue existed regarding whether the respondent had been given reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Alberta order was made, precluding summary judgment under s. 41 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and the proceeding was transferred to Haileybury on the balance of convenience.

The court further held that Ontario jurisdiction under s. 22 of the Act required determination after a full hearing with viva voce evidence.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a negligence action arising from an alleged gas leak and installation of a replacement boiler in a condominium unit.

The plaintiff alleged exposure to toxic fumes and off‑gassing from carpeting that caused multiple respiratory and neurological conditions.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide admissible expert evidence establishing causation between the defendants’ conduct and the alleged health injuries.

Medical reports relied upon were not in admissible affidavit form and were largely based on the plaintiff’s self‑reports.

The absence of air quality testing or expert engineering evidence linking the installation or maintenance of the boilers to the alleged injuries was fatal to the claim.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.