Ryann Atkins

The plaintiff previously had his notice of garnishment against the defendant's spouse struck out.

The plaintiff subsequently accepted an offer to settle the costs of the garnishment proceedings for $58,958.85 but later reneged, demanding the defendant's debt be paid first.

The garnishee brought a motion under Rule 49.09 to enforce the settlement.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff had no basis to claim unfairness against the garnishee, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the settlement amount plus costs of the motion.

The accused, charged with murder, was released on bail.

A mandatory publication ban under s. 517 of the Criminal Code was imposed at the bail hearing.

Following misleading public comments by politicians and the police chief, the accused brought an application to partially lift the publication ban on the bail reasons to counterbalance the misinformation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that s. 517 does not permit partial bans, and while the court has common law jurisdiction to vary the ban, doing so would likely cause more harm than good.

The court held that the accused's fair trial rights would be adequately protected by existing safeguards, including the passage of time, challenge for cause, and jury instructions.

The judgment creditor sought to enforce a Québec judgment against the debtor by garnishing funds from the debtor's wealthy spouse.

The creditor brought a motion to enforce the garnishment and a refusals motion regarding the spouse's cross-examination.

The spouse brought a cross-motion to set aside the Notice of Garnishment.

The court dismissed the refusals motion, finding the questions irrelevant to whether a debt existed.

The court granted the cross-motion and struck the Notice of Garnishment, concluding that the spouse's payments to the debtor were gratuitous gifts made out of love and affection, not remuneration for services, and therefore she was not indebted to him.

The defendant, charged with first-degree murder in the death of a plainclothes police officer who was struck by the defendant's vehicle in an underground parking garage, applied for bail.

The court assessed the strength of the Crown's case, finding the case for murder weak due to a lack of motive and the availability of a rational alternative inference that the defendant panicked, believing he was being attacked by strangers.

The court found a reasonably strong case for manslaughter based on criminal negligence.

Concluding that the defendant met his onus under the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, the court granted bail on strict conditions, including house arrest, electronic monitoring, a driving prohibition, and a substantial surety pledge combined with an exceptional cash deposit.

Following an appeal of a Master's order extending the time to set the action down for trial, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court found that there was divided success on the appeal, as the appellants successfully challenged the Master's reasoning but the respondents successfully affirmed the ultimate outcome.

Balancing the factors under Rule 57.01, the court ordered that all parties bear their own costs.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision granting the plaintiffs an extension of time to set their medical malpractice action down for trial under Rule 48.14(7).

The Superior Court found that the Master erred in law by applying a 'contextual analysis' that relaxed the requirement to meet both parts of the conjunctive test for delay, and erred in fact by relying on evidence outside the record.

However, exercising its own discretion under s. 134 of the Courts of Justice Act, the Court determined the motion on the record and found the plaintiffs had provided an acceptable explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

The Court affirmed the 12-month extension but set aside the Master's costs award, ordering no costs for the motion.

The plaintiffs, a Chinese corporation and an Ontario resident, sued a Canadian law firm and two foreign defendants (a Hong Kong company and its Chinese principal) alleging breach of fiduciary duty and misuse of confidential information regarding the acquisition of shares in a mining company.

The foreign defendants moved to set aside service ex juris and to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter or, alternatively, on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion, setting aside the service because the defendants did not reside or carry on business in Ontario and service did not comply with the Hague Convention.

The court further held it lacked jurisdiction simpliciter as there was no real and substantial connection to Ontario, and alternatively, that Ontario was forum non conveniens, with China or Hong Kong being the appropriate forum.

The plaintiff and defendant, siblings, were involved in a dispute over the ownership and management of a family partnership.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's claim was for breach of contract and statute-barred.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking the appointment of a receiver and manager, further production, and an accounting.

The court dismissed the defendant's summary judgment motion, finding the plaintiff's claim was grounded in breach of fiduciary duty, to which no limitation period applied under the transition provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding no clear evidence of irreparable harm to justify the extraordinary remedy of appointing a receiver, and concluding the requests for production and an accounting lacked a proper jurisdictional basis.

During an ongoing civil trial involving dealership market allocation disputes, the defendant sought permission to rely on a second supplemental expert report and to introduce maps and charts derived from previously discovered market study data.

The plaintiff argued the late expert report constituted trial by ambush and violated prior scheduling orders.

The court held that the supplemental expert opinion properly responded to new expert evidence and newly discovered data introduced during the proceedings, and its admission would not cause unfair prejudice.

The court also permitted the introduction of charts and maps derived from historical data for explanatory purposes, while refusing to authorize a new expert report from a non-designated witness responding to the opposing expert.