Ronald F. Caza

The decision addresses two motions in a commercial real estate dispute: a motion to strike claims against individual condominium directors, and a motion for production of documents.

The court struck the claims against the directors but granted the plaintiff leave to amend, finding the pleadings did not sufficiently distinguish the directors’ conduct from that of the corporation.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s production motion, holding that privilege over communications with counsel and the property manager was not waived by the addition of the property manager as a third party.

The ruling clarifies the high threshold for personal liability of condominium directors and the scope of privilege in multi-party litigation.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action after a three-week trial, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant argued the plaintiff made unfounded allegations of dishonesty and that a nominal settlement offer showed the plaintiff knew the claim lacked merit.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding that while the plaintiff's allegations were not proven, he sincerely believed them and had some basis for his perception.

The court also held that settlement offers should not be used as evidence that a party believes their case lacks merit.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $150,152.65.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, sued his former firm for breach of contract regarding the transfer of client files and wills upon his departure, and for various accounting discrepancies.

The court found that despite being an "independent practitioner" by contract, the plaintiff's practice was highly integrated with the firm, creating obligations and potential liability for the firm towards clients.

Therefore, the firm was entitled to require client directives for file transfers.

The court dismissed the claim for damages related to loss of productivity.

The court also dismissed the financial claims, finding they were not properly pleaded and were statute-barred.

The court rejected the plaintiff's conspiracy theory regarding the firm attempting to appropriate his clientele.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Rees J. dated November 30, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered no costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent, payable within 30 days.

The applicant, a French-language health planning entity, sought judicial review of the Minister of Health's refusal to recommend it for designation as a 'public service agency' under the French Language Services Act.

The Divisional Court held that while the Minister's refusal to recommend was subject to judicial review, the applicable standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court found the Minister's decision reasonable, as the applicant's mandate involved providing advice and planning services to government agencies rather than direct services to the public.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

This costs endorsement followed a summary judgment motion where portable school classrooms were found to be "improvements" under the Construction Act.

OnPoint Group Ltd., the successful party on the main issue, sought full indemnity costs, while intervening parties also sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded OnPoint Group Ltd. $35,000 and the intervenors $9,500, both on a partial indemnity basis.

The decision considered factors such as mixed success, complexity, and the novelty of the issue, and addressed the impact of bilingual proceedings on costs.

The applicant law firm was the victim of a wire transfer fraud, resulting in trust funds being erroneously transferred to a corporate bank account controlled by the respondent.

The bank froze the remaining funds.

The applicant brought an application for the return of the funds paid under a mistake of fact.

The court found that the funds were paid under a mistake of fact, the applicant did not intend for the respondent to receive the funds, and there was no consideration.

The respondent failed to establish a change of position defence.

The court ordered the bank to release the funds to the applicant.

The defendant Conseil des Écoles Catholiques du Centre Est (CECCE) brought a summary judgment motion to determine if portable school classrooms built by the plaintiff OnPoint Group Ltd. are "improvements" under the Construction Act, thereby engaging lien provisions, and to dismiss OnPoint's unjust enrichment claim.

The court found the portables are "improvements" and lienable due to their on-site completion, known final destination, CECCE's holdback practices, and enhancement of the school's utility.

However, the unjust enrichment claim was dismissed as CECCE was not unjustly enriched and a juristic reason (contract with general contractor) existed.

Following a successful motion by the respondent to strike portions of the applicant's affidavit in an estate litigation matter, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of over $56,000, arguing the applicant made unfounded allegations of fraud and conspiracy, and requested costs be payable personally by the applicant's counsel under Rule 57.07.

The court declined to award full or substantial indemnity costs and refused to order costs against counsel personally, finding the conduct did not rise to the requisite egregious level.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend his statement of claim and to continue the action under the simplified procedure, just weeks before a scheduled six-day trial.

The court granted leave to amend the pleadings, finding that the amendments arose from the same factual matrix and would not cause prejudice that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

However, the court dismissed the request to continue under the simplified procedure, noting the motion was brought late in breach of a pre-trial order and that it would be unfair to the defendant to change the procedure solely to allow the plaintiff to avoid adverse costs consequences.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of an Integrity Commissioner's report finding she breached the Code of Conduct, and the municipal council's subsequent decision to suspend her remuneration and restrict her email communications.

The Divisional Court upheld the Integrity Commissioner's findings that the applicant's communications with the Chief Administrative Officer were abusive and breached the Code.

However, the Court found the council's decision to restrict the applicant from emailing all municipal staff for 14.5 months was overbroad, punitive, and unreasonable.

The application was granted in part, quashing the email restriction.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce an alleged settlement of a professional negligence action.

The plaintiff had offered to settle on a dismissal without costs basis.

The defendants' counsel accepted the offer 'provided that' the plaintiff execute a standard LawPRO release, which contained a confidentiality clause.

The plaintiff refused to sign the release and withdrew the offer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requirement to sign the specific release with a confidentiality clause was an essential term and constituted a counteroffer, meaning no settlement was reached.

In the context of Laurentian University's CCAA proceedings, a former student (BR) and the University of Sudbury sought to lift the stay of proceedings to pursue civil litigation regarding historical sexual assault allegations.

BR argued that her claim was exempt from the CCAA claims process under s. 19(2)(b)(i), which exempts awards of damages for sexual assault.

The court dismissed the motions, applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in Montreal (City) v. Deloitte Restructuring Inc. to hold that the s. 19(2) exception must be interpreted narrowly and only applies once an award of damages has actually been established.

Consequently, the claims must be determined within the CCAA Claims Process.

The applicant, a city councillor, sought judicial review of a decision by the city council to suspend his remuneration for 270 days based on a report by the integrity commissioner finding he engaged in sexual harassment.

The applicant alleged bias against both the commissioner and the council.

The Divisional Court dismissed the claims against the commissioner, finding he acted fairly and reasonably accommodated the applicant's health issues.

However, the court found a reasonable apprehension of bias against the city council due to public statements and conduct by members before the investigation concluded.

The court quashed the council's sanction decision but, rather than remitting it, imposed the same 270-day suspension itself due to the severity of the misconduct and the lack of an unbiased decision-maker.

The garnishee brought a motion to reinstate its appeal of an associate judge's order, which had been struck by the registrar for failure to file a motion confirmation form.

The creditor brought a cross-motion to strike the garnishee's affidavit and for judgment.

The court found that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not clearly require a motion confirmation form for an appeal of an interlocutory order of an associate judge, and the creditor should have consented to the reinstatement.

The court granted the motion to reinstate the appeal and dismissed the creditor's motion.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal.

Following established jurisprudence, the court declined to provide reasons for denying leave.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $25,000.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order of the motion judge dated January 11, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 on a partial indemnity scale to the respondents.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order dated January 11, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing and awarded costs of $2,500 on a partial indemnity scale to the respondents.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for partial summary judgment regarding the sale of shares in a family farming business, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the applicant's premature motion and late disclosure.

The court found the applicant's conduct regarding disclosure to be questionable and awarded the respondents costs fixed at $43,000.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.