Ryan Bell

The applicant successfully challenged an arbitrator's preliminary ruling on jurisdiction, with the court declaring an alleged lease invalid due to a forged signature.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis for the court application and the jurisdiction motion before the arbitrator.

The court found that the respondents engaged in reprehensible conduct, including submitting falsified evidence, altering documents, and making bad faith allegations.

Consequently, the court awarded the applicant substantial indemnity costs fixed at $342,230.24.

The applicant challenged an arbitrator's preliminary ruling that an arbitration clause in an alleged lease agreement was valid.

The applicant claimed his signature on the lease was forged.

The court determined that under s. 17(8) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, the application was a hearing de novo.

After assessing lay and expert evidence, including handwriting and ink dating experts, the court found the respondents failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the applicant signed the lease.

The court declared the lease and its arbitration clause invalid and set aside the arbitrator's ruling.

The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault arising from an incident alleged to have occurred in the washroom of a bar where he was the manager and the complainant was training as a bartender.

The Crown alleged the accused forced oral sex on the complainant while she was intoxicated and vomiting.

The court found significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant's testimony, rendering her account unreliable and untrustworthy.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against her former landlord, a real estate agent, a paralegal, her former spouse, and the Ottawa Police Service, alleging an 'eviction scam' that resulted in the loss of her personal property.

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to strike the claim and dismiss the action.

The court granted the motions, finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the core dispute, the claims against the real estate agent were statute-barred, and the pleadings failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action against any defendant.

The action was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious against the paralegal and former spouse, and the claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The applicant, charged with offences under the Taxation Act, 2007, sought an order prohibiting the Ontario Court of Justice from proceeding with his trial pending his appeal of a dismissed certiorari application.

The applicant argued that his notice of appeal automatically stayed the trial proceedings and suspended the lower court's jurisdiction.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that an appeal does not automatically stay proceedings and that the lower court retained jurisdiction to consider the Crown's joinder application.

The defendants (Trinity) moved for an order requiring the plaintiff (CSMI) to produce documents relating to a real estate development.

CSMI consented to production, but the National Capital Commission (NCC), a non-party, sought enhanced confidentiality protections for the documents.

The court rejected the NCC's proposed two-tier confidentiality order, finding it overbroad and unsupported by evidence demonstrating that the existing implied undertaking, deemed undertaking rule, and confidentiality protocol were insufficient.

The court granted the motion on the terms proposed by Trinity.

The plaintiff requested clarification regarding the scope of an order compelling production of documents.

The court had previously found a joint retainer existed between the plaintiff and the defendant.

The court clarified that as between joint venture parties, communications with the jointly retained lawyer relating to the subject matter of the joint venture are not privileged, even if the communications involved matters where the parties' interests were adverse or concerned withdrawing from the joint venture.

The applicant sought judicial review of a housing cooperative's decision that she was no longer eligible for a Rent-Geared-to-Income subsidy after refusing an offer for a one-bedroom unit.

The applicant argued the cooperative lacked the delegated authority to make this determination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the service manager had expressly delegated the authority to determine eligibility and consider extenuating circumstances to the cooperative.

The court also found the cooperative's decision that the applicant failed to establish extenuating circumstances was reasonable.

The plaintiff, former owner of a commercial property, sued the neighbouring property owner for environmental contamination caused by the migration of dry-cleaning solvents (PCE, TCE, DCE).

The defendant purchased the neighbouring property in 2007 and was put on notice of the contamination in 2010 but failed to take reasonable steps to investigate or remediate the issue, ignoring Ministry of the Environment requests until a Provincial Officer's Order was issued.

The court found the defendant liable in nuisance and negligence for allowing the continuing migration of contaminants after acquiring knowledge of the issue.

The plaintiff was awarded $1,291,307.21 in damages, representing the diminution in the property's market value and reasonable engineering expenses incurred to obtain a Record of Site Condition.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including police surveillance of two residences and the subsequent seizure of large quantities of drugs and cash.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the prohibited substances and property, as other individuals had access to the residences and the items were not in plain view.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an extension of time to set the action down for trial and to find the defendants in contempt.

The contempt motion was dismissed, and the parties could not agree on costs.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing that the contempt motion was ill-advised.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible.

The court fixed the defendants' costs at $9,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time to set the action down for trial and to find the defendants in civil contempt for allegedly failing to comply with a prior order for documentary production.

The court granted the extension of time on consent.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding no evidence that the defendants acted in defiance of the order, as they had produced documents and provided reasons for not producing others.

The court emphasized that civil contempt is a remedy of last resort and other adequate remedies were available to the plaintiff.

The applicant sought declarations regarding the validity of her mother's Powers of Attorney for personal care, alleging her mother lacked capacity when executing the most recent one.

The Public Guardian and Trustee and some respondents requested the appointment of counsel for the mother under section 3 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

The court found that given the mother's capacity was at the centre of the application and the family was at odds, it was appropriate to order the Public Guardian and Trustee to arrange legal representation for her, to be paid from her property.

The applicant brought a motion in an oppression application, alleging the respondent breached her fiduciary duties by usurping a corporate opportunity to extend a commercial lease and seeking a constructive trust over the new lease.

The applicant also alleged the respondent was in civil contempt of an interim order governing the joint management of their deadlocked company.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the lease extension was not a maturing corporate opportunity because the parties' deadlock rendered the company unable and unwilling to pursue it.

The court also found the applicant failed to establish civil contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The plaintiff, a corporate entity managing a sports facility, brought an action against several soccer associations for negligence and intentional interference with economic relations (unlawful means tort).

The claims arose from the issuance of International Transfer Certificates for two players, the non-approval of an invitational tournament, and communications regarding unsanctioned indoor soccer leagues.

The court dismissed the action, finding that no duty of care existed between the plaintiff and the associations, as the plaintiff was not a member and had actively distanced itself from them.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence of unlawful acts against third parties or intent to harm the plaintiff, and concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove any damages.

During a civil jury trial involving claims of negligence and intentional interference with economic interests against various soccer associations, the defendants moved to strike the jury following the plaintiff's closing address.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff's counsel made 69 improper statements, including suggesting new legal claims, misstating the jury's role, attempting to adduce new evidence, and misstating the law and evidence.

The trial judge found that the plaintiff's counsel repeatedly crossed the line and that the cumulative effect of the misstatements rendered correction by an appropriate charge impossible.

The motion was granted, the jury was discharged, and the trial judge assumed responsibility for determining liability and damages.

The applicants, minority co-owners of two commercial properties, sought relief from alleged oppressive conduct, breach of trust, and breach of fiduciary duty by the majority co-owners and property managers following a cash call.

The court found that the respondents' failure to provide timely and meaningful access to financial records unfairly disregarded and prejudiced the applicants' interests under section 248 of the Business Corporations Act.

However, the court dismissed claims regarding management fees, financing, and conflicts of interest, and found no breach of trust or fiduciary duty.

The court ordered specific terms for future financial disclosure and governance but declined to order a forced buy-out of the applicants' interests.

Costs for the disclosure motion were awarded to the applicants on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving party's motion to change a custody and access order, based on unfounded allegations of parental alienation, was dismissed.

The responding party, having been entirely successful, sought costs of $21,048.51.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, noting the moving party's unreasonable behaviour in pursuing unfounded allegations.

The court also applied Rule 18(14), as the responding party had made an offer to settle that was more favourable than the final order.

The court awarded the responding party partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and full indemnity costs thereafter, fixing total costs at $20,201.01.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision upholding a Community Treatment Order (CTO).

The appellant argued the issuing physician failed to consult with the named health practitioners and that the substitute decision-maker had not signed the required undertaking when the CTO was issued.

The Superior Court found the Board's conclusion regarding consultation was reasonable.

However, the court held that the Board erred in law by not requiring the substitute decision-maker's undertaking to be in place before the CTO was issued.

The appeal was allowed and the CTO was quashed.