Sandra Barton

The plaintiff commenced an action regarding a stream of royalty payments from a mine in Guatemala.

The defendants brought motions to strike the claim.

In response, the plaintiff delivered an amended statement of claim.

The defendants moved to declare the amended claim a nullity, arguing it could not be amended without leave in the face of a motion to strike.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to amend.

The court held that while leave is required to amend a claim in the face of a motion to strike, the motion for leave should be heard first.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend, finding that the proposed amendments were not time-barred, did not withdraw admissions, and were sufficiently particularized.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim for restitution for unjust enrichment and disgorgement of profits, and a motion to bifurcate the trial on liability and damages.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants breached a settlement agreement regarding the market entry date of a generic drug.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the pleaded facts were capable of supporting the restitutionary claims.

The court granted the motion to bifurcate, finding exceptional circumstances justified separating the liability issues from the complex quantification of damages.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the approval of a settlement in three consolidated class actions against three immigration lawyers for professional negligence.

The class members were Roma refugee claimants from Hungary whose applications failed or did not proceed while represented by the defendants.

The court approved the settlement of $500,000 in damages and $50,000 in costs, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $181,500 and a $2,500 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The plaintiffs brought motions to certify three proposed class actions for settlement purposes against three immigration lawyers.

The plaintiffs alleged professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in the defendants' representation of Roma refugee claimants from Hungary.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, noting that compliance is not as strictly required for settlement purposes.

The motions for certification were granted.

The defendants were successful in defending a defamation action brought by the plaintiffs regarding a scientific controversy.

The defendants sought costs of over $2.2 million, while the plaintiffs proposed approximately $236,000.

The court noted the defendants presented a comprehensive and formidable defence, whereas the plaintiffs' case was not robust and relied on a failed strategy.

Applying the principles for fixing costs, the court balanced the need to indemnify the successful, blameless defendants against the risk of deterring future litigants.

The court fixed the defendants' costs at $1,478,766.64, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicants, owners of the Glen Abbey Golf Course, brought an application to quash five municipal by-laws enacted by the respondent Town.

The by-laws aimed to preserve the property's use as a golf course following its designation as a cultural heritage property.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the application and quashed the by-laws, finding them ultra vires the Town's authority under the Municipal Act, as they improperly required the provision of services related to recreation and culture.

The court also found the by-laws were enacted in bad faith to thwart the applicants' redevelopment plans and were void for vagueness.

The plaintiffs, a genetic testing company and its director, sued the defendants for defamation over a magazine article criticizing their non-invasive prenatal paternity test.

The article alleged the test was dangerous, unreliable, and prone to error.

The court found the article was defamatory but dismissed the action, holding that the defendants successfully established the defences of justification, qualified privilege, fair comment, and responsible communication.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to properly validate their test according to accepted scientific methodology, rendering the test unreliable and the article's claims substantially true.

In a defamation action concerning an article criticizing the plaintiffs' prenatal paternity test, the defendants brought a motion to amend their Statement of Defence after the close of evidence at trial.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the amendment introduced new allegations regarding the validity of the underlying science, which would cause non-compensable prejudice.

The court reviewed the existing pleadings and expert reports, concluding that the validity of the science was already a live issue and the amendment merely clarified existing allegations.

The court granted the motion to amend, finding no prejudice to the plaintiffs.