Samantha Ashley Mahola Green

The plaintiff, Willowbrook Nurseries Inc., sued the Royal Bank of Canada for breach of contract and bad faith, alleging the bank failed to provide reasonable notice of changes to its lending arrangements and restricted financing.

Willowbrook claimed an overarching agreement for continued credit, including temporary accommodation requests (TARs), which RBC abruptly ceased.

The court found that the relationship was contractual, not fiduciary, and while RBC's actions might have been financially unwise, they were not in bad faith.

The bank exercised its contractual entitlements and provided reasonable notice for Willowbrook to seek alternative financing.

The plaintiff's claims for specific, goodwill, productivity, general, and punitive damages were dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced an action against her former legal and financial advisors alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with advice provided during negotiation of a marriage contract.

The defendants brought summary judgment motions asserting that the action was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and constituted an abuse of process because the plaintiff had a statutory remedy under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act to set aside the marriage contract against her spouse.

The court held the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of discoverability and knew or ought to have known of the material facts giving rise to her claims more than two years before commencing the action.

The court further held that attempting to obtain, through damages against advisors, relief that should have been pursued through family law proceedings constituted an abuse of process.

On an appeal from a Master's production order, the appellants challenged an order requiring disclosure of seven years of post-contract financial statements and tax returns relating to companies in which a non-party had an interest.

The court held that, given the pleadings alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from advice leading to a marriage contract, the documents were relevant to the plaintiff's broad damages claim, including restitutionary assessment for breach of fiduciary duty.

The court rejected arguments that post-valuation records were irrelevant, that the order caused prejudice, or that disclosure should await a pending summary judgment motion.

The appeals were dismissed.

The plaintiffs, two physicians with prominent professional roles, brought a defamation action arising from malicious internet websites created by the defendant that falsely accused them of criminal conduct and professional misconduct.

After the defendant ceased participating in the litigation and his defence was struck, the plaintiffs sought default judgment and damages.

The court held that the publications were intentionally designed to harm the plaintiffs' professional reputations and were entirely false.

Applying principles governing defamation damages, including those articulated in Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Barrick Gold Corp. v. Lopehandia, the court found substantial reputational harm caused through internet dissemination.

Each plaintiff was awarded $150,000 in general damages and the defendant was ordered to pay $50,000 in punitive damages, together with costs.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff bank succeeded in obtaining judgment against one defendant for fraud and under a personal guarantee, the court addressed competing claims for costs.

The bank sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $600,000, while certain defendants who successfully defended fraud allegations sought substantial indemnity costs for both trial and a prior Mareva injunction motion.

The court found that the bank had overstated and pursued broad allegations of fraud despite prior judicial warnings, unnecessarily lengthening the litigation.

Costs were therefore limited to partial indemnity and further reduced under Rule 57 for litigation conduct.

After applying equitable set‑off against costs awarded to two defendants, the court ordered one defendant to pay net costs to the bank.