Ronald F. Caza

The applicant, the Mayor of Hawkesbury, sought an interlocutory stay of a municipal council decision regarding potential sanctions following an Integrity Commissioner's report finding she breached the Code of Conduct.

She also sought a sealing order for certain documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, noting the statutory requirement that such reports be made public.

The request for a sealing order was also dismissed.

The applicant sought partial summary judgment to compel the sale of shares in a family dairy farm corporation from the estate of a deceased brother and other family members.

The applicant alleged an impasse in the company's management due to a breakdown in the relationship with the new shareholders, claiming he was forced to work excessive hours without cooperation or authority.

The respondents disputed these claims, alleging the applicant refused to register them as shareholders, mismanaged finances, and failed to provide necessary documentation.

The court dismissed the motion for partial summary judgment, finding significant factual disputes and credibility issues that required a full trial.

The court emphasized that partial summary judgment is a rare procedure, inappropriate when issues are intertwined and pleadings are not closed.

The appellant, a police officer and union president, was suspended by the Chief of Police following criminal charges.

He brought an action for damages and declaratory relief, alleging Charter breaches and misfeasance in public office.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute fell under the collective agreement or required judicial review.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the collective agreement expressly did not apply to the appellant during his union secondment, and that an action is a permissible route to seek relief in the nature of judicial review, particularly when damages are claimed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a temporary order made by Justice Shelston on August 27, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,745.55.

The plaintiff, Richcraft Homes Ltd., initiated an action against several defendants, including Urbandale Corporation, Urbandale Construction Limited, and Lawrence Weinstein, seeking declaratory relief for oppressive conduct, breach of contract, and punitive damages related to land development projects.

The defendants brought motions under Rule 21 to strike Richcraft's claims, arguing they failed to plead material facts supporting a reasonable prospect of success.

The court granted the motions, finding that Richcraft did not demonstrate compensable injury or a likelihood of threatened oppressive conduct, nor an independent actionable wrong for punitive damages.

Leave to amend was denied due to the absence of proposed amendments or supporting evidence.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, a police officer on leave serving as union president, was suspended and barred from police facilities following criminal charges.

He sued, alleging interference with his union duties.

The court found that the essential character of the dispute arose either under the collective agreement or the disciplinary regime of the Police Services Act.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction and the action was dismissed.

The applicant sought the appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to a co-tenancy agreement to resolve a dispute over the conveyance of residential lots.

The respondent opposed, arguing that the agreement's 'Applicable Law' clause, which attorned to the exclusive jurisdiction of Ontario courts, invalidated the arbitration clause.

The court held that the contract must be read as a whole, finding that the specific arbitration clause qualified the general applicable law clause.

The court appointed an arbitrator to determine the dispute.

Following a successful civil action for abuse against their father, Liviu Calin, plaintiffs Ana and Ilinca Calin sought costs of over $395,000.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 factors, found the requested costs disproportionately high given the significant disparity between the $10.15 million claimed and the $105,000 awarded.

While acknowledging the plaintiffs' success and the principles of the Victims' Bill of Rights, the court determined that the plaintiffs' pursuit of unrealistic claims, particularly for income loss and incidents in Romania, unnecessarily lengthened proceedings.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $100,000 in costs, reduced by a prior $17,000 order against them, resulting in a net payment of $83,000 from the defendant.

The plaintiffs, twin sisters, brought an action against their father for damages arising from alleged physical, psychological, and emotional abuse during their childhood and adolescence.

The court found that the father had committed battery, assault, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty by subjecting the plaintiffs to physical violence and threats that exceeded reasonable parental discipline.

However, the court dismissed the claims for intentional infliction of mental distress and wrongful imprisonment, finding insufficient evidence that the father's conduct caused the plaintiffs' psychiatric disorders or that he completely isolated them.

The court awarded general damages of $50,000 to one plaintiff and $35,000 to the other, along with $10,000 each in punitive damages, but dismissed claims for loss of income and competitive advantage.

The appellant appealed from a trial judge's decision dismissing his malicious prosecution claim against the respondents and upholding a defamation judgment against him and his wife.

The appellant alleged that the respondents falsely reported sexual assault charges against him to police.

The trial judge granted a non-suit motion on the malicious prosecution claim, finding insufficient evidence that the respondents initiated the prosecution.

The trial judge also withdrew the qualified privilege defence from the jury regarding defamatory statements made to a priest.

The jury found the appellants jointly liable for defamation and awarded damages of $25,000.

The Court of Appeal upheld all trial decisions.

Costs decision following a neighbour dispute over laneway access.

The successful party sought $43,750 in costs, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found the offer was not beaten and noted the successful party's provocative pre-litigation conduct in blocking the laneway unnecessarily escalated the dispute.

Applying the principle of proportionality and considering the conduct, the court fixed costs at $15,000.

This endorsement addresses the costs of motions argued on February 27, 2017.

The plaintiffs were largely successful in a motion to strike a defamation action but unsuccessful in a motion for the return of personal property.

Considering the written submissions and Rule 59 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded the plaintiffs modest costs on a partial indemnity scale against Mr. Chan and Ms. Tourian.

The plaintiffs' claim for approximately $30,000.00 was reduced to $7,000.00 due to the motions' lack of complexity and divided success.

The applicants, John Charles Brown and Joanne Muggette Brown, sought a declaration of adverse possession or a prescriptive easement over a laneway on Karen Savage's property.

Karen Savage, in a cross-application, sought a closing order for the laneway.

The court dismissed the Browns' claims for adverse possession and prescriptive easement, finding they failed to establish exclusive use or use "as of right." The court found that Savage did not require a closing order under the Road Access Act because the Browns had viable alternative access to their property from a public road, albeit at a cost.

Savage was granted the right to exclude the Browns from using the laneway, with a one-year suspension of enforcement to allow the Browns to implement alternative access.

The Plaintiffs, having obtained partial summary judgment on liability, sought substantial indemnity costs.

The Defendants proposed a global award.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, assessed the Plaintiffs' costs.

It found the Plaintiffs' claimed fees and disbursements excessive, particularly for time not directly related to the summary judgment motion and for preparing costs submissions.

The court also considered the "no-cost" offer to settle, finding it did not automatically trigger Rule 49 consequences but was a relevant factor.

The court fixed the Plaintiffs' costs at $160,889.76 in fees and $100,000 in disbursements, inclusive of taxes.

The court heard two motions in consolidated actions: one by ORBCOMM for the return of corporate data from former senior managers (Chan and Tourian) and the representative shareholder (Randy Taylor Professional Corporation), and another by ORBCOMM, Skywave, and Marc Eisenberg to strike a defamation claim brought by Chan and Tourian.

The court ordered Chan and Tourian to provide copies of the data but allowed them to retain their own copies, finding no contractual obligation to destroy them.

The defamation claim was struck for lack of particularity but with leave to amend, as the former managers were not parties to the main action and thus had no direct means to dispute allegations affecting their reputation.

The City of Ottawa sought costs of a motion brought by the appellants to set aside an order refusing leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision.

The appellants argued they should be excused from paying costs as public interest litigants.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding that the motion to set aside was totally without merit and effectively sought to reargue the leave motion, which did not constitute public interest litigation.

Costs were awarded to the City of Ottawa fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the defendants' liability for professional negligence in failing to advise them of the 21-year deemed disposition rule under the Income Tax Act regarding a family trust.

The defendants admitted breach of the standard of care but disputed causation, arguing the third-party accountants were responsible, and brought a cross-motion to have causation and damages heard together with the third-party claim.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding no genuine issue for trial on liability as the 'but for' test for causation was met against the defendants.

The court dismissed the defendants' cross-motion, holding that the third-party action could proceed independently and should not delay the plaintiffs' main action.

The appellant guaranteed a loan made by the respondent bank to a corporation.

After the corporation defaulted on its obligations, the bank demanded payment and successfully moved for summary judgment against the appellant.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge misinterpreted the guarantee, failed to consider whether the corporation was given a reasonable time to pay, and erred in rejecting his claim for an equitable discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's interpretation of the guarantee and concluding that the appellant failed to establish that the bank's conduct caused the corporation's default.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' motion for leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding a development on lands with significance to indigenous persons, the successful respondents sought costs.

The court declined to award costs against the appellants, finding they met the criteria for public interest litigants as they raised issues of public importance regarding indigenous religious sites and had no pecuniary interest in the outcome.

Additionally, the court awarded costs to the appellants' counsel personally against one of the respondents for an abandoned claim for personal costs under Rule 57.07(1).

The plaintiffs appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their request for a Mareva injunction.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding the motion judge applied the correct legal test requiring a strong prima facie case and made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the plaintiffs failed to meet this burden or the balance of convenience test.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.