Robert Trenker

The plaintiff, Sae-Bin Im, sought an extension of time to file a statement of claim, while several defendants moved to dismiss the action for breach of a peremptory order and for delay.

The court found the plaintiff's explanation for non-compliance, including self-representation, involvement in other litigation, and medical issues (depression and anxiety), to be satisfactory and not intentional.

The court also found no significant prejudice to the sophisticated defendants, who were aware of the proceedings and could preserve evidence.

The court granted the plaintiff an extension to file the statement of claim and dismissed the defendants' motions to dismiss, emphasizing that the plaintiff's claim, though lengthy, was not frivolous or vexatious.

The plaintiffs brought a negligence action arising from a brutal assault on a vulnerable inmate in a provincial detention centre protective custody unit.

The court held that correctional staff fell below the standard of care by permitting three aggressive inmates with a known history of assaults and acting in concert to remain housed together, and by failing to make compatibility inquiries before placing the plaintiff in the unit.

Applying a but-for causation analysis, the court found the assault would not have occurred absent those failures.

The plaintiff was found contributorily negligent for not alerting staff upon seeing an inmate with whom he had prior conflict, and fault was apportioned at 15 percent against the plaintiff.

Liability was found against the Ministry, with damages already agreed and remaining issues deferred.

The plaintiffs moved to add Dr. Peter Law as a defendant in a medical negligence action after the expiration of the applicable limitation period, alleging negligent misreading of x-rays.

The court considered the doctrines of "Special Circumstances" and "Fraudulent Concealment." While the discoverability principle did not apply to the Trustee Act limitation period, the court found that the plaintiffs successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice against Dr. Law and established exceptional "special circumstances" due to the late, critical, and unexplained disclosure of x-ray imaging and interpretation notes by Southlake Regional Health Centre years after the limitation period expired.

The court rejected the argument of fraudulent concealment.

The motion to add Dr. Law as a defendant and amend the statement of claim was granted.

The plaintiffs, three Russian cyclists, sued the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Richard McLaren for damages related to their exclusion from the 2016 Olympic Games.

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to dismiss or permanently stay the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction and abuse of process, and to strike the statement of claim against McLaren.

The court found that resolving the jurisdictional issues would require extensive fact-finding, including assessing conflicting expert opinions and credibility, which exceeds the scope of a Rule 21 motion.

Consequently, the Rule 21.01(3) motions were ordered to be reconstituted as Rule 20 summary judgment motions or a trial of issues, and McLaren's Rule 21.01(1)(b) motion was deferred.

Appeal from a Superior Court judgment finding the indemnifier liable under an indemnity agreement for unpaid rent and related losses.

The indemnifier challenged the finding of liability based on alleged pre-contractual misrepresentations by the landlord regarding park improvements.

The court upheld the finding of liability, rejecting the misrepresentation defence.

On the quantum issue, the court dismissed the indemnifier's appeal regarding restoration costs and legal fees, but allowed the landlord's cross-appeal to extend liability for future rent through the end of the lease term, subject to mitigation credits.

The appellant appealed a Master's order refusing to set aside a Registrar's administrative dismissal of his civil action under Rule 48.14(1).

The Divisional Court found that the Master erred in law and made palpable and overriding errors of fact by incorrectly applying the test for setting aside an administrative dismissal.

Specifically, the Master failed to consider all factors, such as promptness and prejudice, and ignored certified information provided by counsel in a Simplified Procedure motion form.

The appeal was allowed, the Master's order was set aside, and the action was ordered to be set down for trial.

This is a costs endorsement on appeal from a Superior Court judgment.

The unsuccessful appellants (Essar entities and GIP entities) were ordered to pay costs to the successful respondents (the Monitor and Algoma Steel).

The parties agreed on the quantum of costs but disagreed on whether liability should be several or joint and several.

The court awarded costs on a several basis, allocating 25% to GIP and 75% to Essar, finding that GIP had a more limited role with different issues and less oral argument time than Essar.

The applicant landlord brought an application to enforce an indemnity agreement against the respondent guarantor after the tenant defaulted on a commercial lease.

The respondent argued the application should be converted to a trial, alleging it was induced to sign the indemnity by negligent misrepresentations regarding park signage and access.

The court found no evidence of specific, actionable representations and held that the absolute and unconditional terms of the indemnity agreement, along with the parol evidence rule, precluded the respondent's defence.

The application was granted, and the respondent was ordered to pay rent arrears, restoration costs, and legal fees.

Motions for leave to appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing a motion to require Algoma to resume payments under a Cargo Handling Agreement in the context of CCAA proceedings.

The applicants sought to invoke section 11.01(a) of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to compel payment for post-filing services.

The motion judge had dismissed the motion three times on the same legal grounds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the leave motions, finding no prima facie merit due to issue estoppel and no significance to the practice, as the issues were specific to the unique agreements underlying the Port Transaction.

The appellant physician appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding her guilty of sexual abuse and revoking her license.

The finding of sexual abuse was based on a romantic kiss with a vulnerable patient.

The appellant argued the doctor-patient relationship had ended prior to the kiss and that the Committee breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit a letter from the patient after the close of evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reversal of the burden of proof, and that the penalty of revocation was reasonable given the extensive history of boundary violations and professional misconduct.

The tenant brought an urgent motion seeking relief from forfeiture after the landlord terminated a commercial lease and re-entered the premises due to substantial rent arrears.

The tenant had ceased paying rent for several months and significant arrears had accumulated, though the tenant alleged the premises had serious deficiencies and that the parties had been engaged in ongoing lease renegotiations.

The court applied the equitable principles governing relief from forfeiture under the Commercial Tenancies Act and Courts of Justice Act, considering the tenant’s conduct, the gravity of the breach, and the surrounding circumstances.

Although the tenant’s failure to pay rent weighed against relief, the court granted interim relief from forfeiture on strict terms requiring substantial payment of rent arrears and ongoing compliance with the lease.

The matter was adjourned for further determination on whether the relief should continue on an interlocutory basis pending trial.