Sandra Lyn Barton

Clublink sought leave to admit a supplementary affidavit after cross-examinations concluded, arguing it supported their claim of bad faith in Oakville's by-law enactment.

Oakville moved to strike the affidavit, arguing it was late-filed and irrelevant.

The court applied the four-part test for admitting late-filed evidence under Rule 39.02(2), finding the evidence either irrelevant or available prior to cross-examinations.

Clublink's motion for leave was dismissed, and Oakville's motion to strike was granted, rendering the supplementary affidavit inadmissible.

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.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing an application for judicial review of a Crown decision to stay a private prosecution.

The appellant alleged that the Crown's decision to stay the prosecution constituted an abuse of process, arguing that the decision was not evidence-based and that failing to prosecute what the appellant characterized as indisputable perjury harmed the integrity of the administration of justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that abuse of process is not a tool for assessing the quality or reasonableness of prosecutorial decisions, but rather addresses egregious Crown conduct that seriously undermines the fairness of proceedings or the integrity of the administration of justice.

The court found no foundation for an abuse of process finding.

Bombardier Transportation Canada Inc. (BTC) sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent Metrolinx (MTX) from terminating a $770 million contract for light rail vehicles (LRVs) due to alleged material default, pending the completion of a mandatory dispute resolution process.

BTC also sought to remove the Engineer, Jeffrey Rankin, for alleged partiality.

The court found that the contract's dispute resolution process applied to MTX's right to terminate for material default.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court determined there was a serious issue to be tried, BTC would suffer irreparable harm (loss of reputation, future business, supply chain disruption, and employee expertise), and the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, prohibiting MTX from terminating the contract until the Dispute Review Board (DRB) ruled on the default, and ordered the injunction to be nunc pro tunc to stay cure periods.

The issue of the Engineer's impartiality was referred to the DRB.

The court held a multi-stage pre-trial conference in a defamation action to ensure an efficient and organized trial.

The judge expressed concern about the plaintiffs' ability to prove damages commensurate with the litigation costs and the lengthy delay since publication.

Directions were issued to streamline the trial process, including requiring evidence in chief by affidavit (except for one plaintiff), exchanging expert reports, facilitating expert meetings, and mandating the use of video conferencing for most foreign witnesses to reduce costs and delays.

Following a trial and partial appeal, the only remaining issue in the action was damages for negligent misrepresentation.

The parties exchanged settlement communications in which the defendant offered to pay $80,000 inclusive of interest and costs in exchange for dismissal of the remaining issues and a full and final release.

The plaintiff accepted the offer but the parties later disagreed about the scope of the release wording.

The court held that settlements normally imply the provision of a release, but the terms must reflect the agreement actually reached.

The court found the plaintiff’s proposed release properly reflected the settlement terms and rejected the defendant’s attempt to broaden the release to include additional discoverable claims.

The application judge failed to provide any reasons for his decision, making appellate review impossible.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to a different judge of the Superior Court.

The appellants appealed a decision recognizing a U.S. civil judgment against them for over $36 million.

They argued that they were denied a meaningful opportunity to defend the U.S. action because outstanding Canadian criminal charges precluded them from testifying in the U.S. proceeding without incriminating themselves.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants could have testified in the U.S. proceeding and subsequently argued for the exclusion of that evidence in their Canadian criminal trial under the Charter or the trial judge's common-law discretion.

The appellant appealed an order converting an application into a trial.

The Court of Appeal raised the issue of whether the order was interlocutory, which would deprive the court of jurisdiction.

The appellant argued the order was final because it was against a non-party and ended a summary procedure.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, finding the order was only against the appellant and simply converted the application into a trial within the same court.

The appeal was quashed as the order was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario released an addendum on costs following an appeal.

The respondents were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $10,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The deceased's estate brought a medical malpractice action against the appellant doctor for failing to diagnose and treat bladder cancer.

The action was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period in s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act.

The estate pleaded that the doctor fraudulently concealed his negligence by lying to the family about having recommended radical treatment.

The doctor moved to strike the claim as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision dismissing the motion, finding that the common law doctrine of fraudulent concealment can toll the limitation period in s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act, and that the facts as pleaded were capable of supporting a finding of fraudulent concealment.

The appellant, the sole shareholder of a bankrupt hotel, appealed a vesting order and an order approving the sale of the hotel's assets by a court-appointed receiver.

The appellant argued that the receiver failed to disclose the identity of the principals behind the purchaser, which tainted the sale process.

The purchaser brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing it was moot because the vesting order had already been registered on title under the Land Titles Act.

The Court of Appeal held that once a vesting order is registered on title without a stay, its attributes as a court order are spent and it becomes a conveyance, rendering any appeal from the order moot.

The Court also dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding that the identity of the purchaser's principals was not material to the receiver's sale process.

The appellant sign companies challenged a municipal by-law that imposed an annual fee on third-party billboards and capped the total number of such signs.

The appellants argued the fee was an ultra vires indirect tax and the cap violated their freedom of expression under the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the by-law, finding that the annual fee was a valid regulatory fee authorized by the Municipal Act, as it defrayed the costs of the municipality's sign section.

The Court also held that while the cap on billboards infringed freedom of expression, it was saved under section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit to protect the city's urban plan and streetscape.