Sanfilippo

The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action requested an urgent case management conference to seek an extension of time to deliver their expert reports on income loss and liability.

The defendants opposed the extension, arguing the plaintiffs should be barred from delivering the reports due to their breach of the existing timetable.

The court granted the extension, finding that the timetable could be varied to allow the plaintiffs more time without reducing the time afforded to the defendants to deliver their responding reports, thereby preserving the scheduled trial date.

The respondent successfully opposed the confirmation of a provisional variation order made in Nova Scotia.

She sought costs on a full or partial indemnity basis.

The court found the respondent presumptively entitled to costs due to her success and the applicant's conduct.

To afford the out-of-province applicant an opportunity to respond, the court remitted the matter back to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court under section 19(6) of the Divorce Act, granting the applicant 90 days to file written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff and defendant are siblings disputing the estate of their late mother, who died leaving over $21 million in assets.

The mother had historically treated her children equally in her estate planning.

In May 2013, she executed a new will leaving 75% of her estate to the defendant and 25% to the plaintiff.

Subsequently, between August 2013 and September 2014, the mother executed numerous documents that effectively transferred all her wealth to the defendant, primarily through a joint investment account with a right of survivorship, and disinherited the plaintiff entirely.

The plaintiff challenged the validity of the May 2013 will and the subsequent documents, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.

The court found that the mother had testamentary capacity throughout.

However, the court concluded that the post-August 2013 documents and inter vivos gifts were procured through the defendant's undue influence and were therefore invalid.

The court upheld the May 2013 will as valid and ordered that the assets transferred to the defendant be held in a resulting trust for the estate, to be distributed 75% to the defendant and 25% to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury trial where the jury awarded zero damages, the defendant brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function caused by the 2013 accident.

The plaintiff's medical evidence was flawed because his experts were either unaware of or could not parse out the effects of three subsequent motor vehicle accidents.

The defendant's motion was granted and the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss was dismissed.

At the eleventh case management conference in this action, the plaintiffs sought an expedited trial date and an order for a summary trial under Rule 76.12.

The defendants opposed the summary trial process and sought time to complete discoveries and deliver responding expert reports.

The court declined to order a summary trial at this stage but established a timetable for the delivery of amended pleadings, completion of discoveries, and exchange of expert reports, with the next case management conference scheduled for January 2020.

At a fourth case management conference, the court addressed ongoing procedural issues in an action involving self-represented plaintiffs.

The court directed that future examinations for discovery proceed orally rather than by written interrogatory due to complications.

The court declined to waive mandatory mediation and deferred the plaintiffs' request to schedule a summary judgment motion until they could properly frame it in accordance with the principles of partial summary judgment.

Various other procedural directions were made, including delegating certain discovery motions to a Case Management Master.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded $150,899 in damages for the termination of a consulting agreement, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs based on two offers to settle, but the court found neither met the requirements of Rule 49.10.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs but reduced the quantum to $20,000 all-inclusive due to the plaintiff's late production of material documents shortly before trial, which breached the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, a US citizen, worked for Legend USA in California under contracts containing arbitration clauses.

He later relocated to Ontario to work for Legend Canada without signing a new contract.

After being terminated, he sued both companies for wrongful dismissal and unpaid overtime under the Employment Standards Act.

The defendants moved to stay the action based on the California arbitration agreements.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no arbitration agreement existed with Legend Canada, and the agreement with Legend USA did not cover the Ontario employment.

Furthermore, the court noted the arbitration clause would be invalid as an impermissible contracting out of the Employment Standards Act.

The plaintiff brought a civil action against the Toronto Police Services Board and individual officers, alleging they used excessive force during his arrest and were negligent in his subsequent detention.

The plaintiff claimed he was severely beaten without warning, while the police testified they executed a controlled take-down after he resisted arrest.

The court found the police officers' evidence credible and reliable, concluding that the force used was necessary, justified, and not excessive under section 25(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, ultimately dismissing the action in its entirety.

The applicant father sought to confirm a Provisional Variation Order from Nova Scotia that varied child support and post-secondary expenses under the Divorce Act.

The respondent mother opposed confirmation, arguing non-compliance with the Divorce Act and disputing the father's evidence regarding the children's residence and her financial contributions.

The court refused to confirm the provisional order, finding that the applicant failed to establish the jurisdictional requirements under section 18(2) of the Divorce Act and failed to prove a material change in circumstances, as the mother had been financially supporting the adult children directly.

The Applicant sought costs following partial success on a motion to stay the Respondent's motion to change.

The Applicant claimed costs on a full recovery basis, arguing the Respondent acted in bad faith and that she beat her offer to settle.

The court rejected the bad faith argument and found the offer to settle was not as favourable as the order obtained.

The court awarded the Applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis, reduced to reflect her divided success, fixing the amount at $10,000 all-inclusive.

The parties separated after a high-conflict relationship.

Following separation, the children's relationship with the applicant father deteriorated until they refused to see him.

The father sought sole custody and reunification therapy, alleging the respondent mother intentionally alienated the children.

The mother sought sole custody and an order leaving access to the children's discretion.

The court dismissed both primary claims, finding no intentional alienation but concluding it was not in the children's best interests to abandon the relationship with their father.

The court ordered disengaged parallel parenting, maintained the children's primary residence with the mother, and implemented a step-up access schedule for the father along with mandatory parental counselling.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought an action for $75 million in damages for construction deficiencies against 53 defendants.

One defendant, Liberty Development Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against it, arguing it had no contractual or operational connection to the project.

The plaintiff brought a preliminary motion to admit an expert report, which was dismissed for failing to meet the Mohan criteria.

The court dismissed Liberty's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues requiring trial regarding Liberty's operational involvement, representations of its involvement, and its relationship with the construction manager.

The court also held that partial summary judgment was not advisable in the context of the litigation as a whole due to the risk of duplicative and inconsistent findings.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of $195,000 in unsecured loans advanced to the defendant corporation.

The defendant argued that the loans were not proven and, alternatively, that a Proceeds Sharing and Priorities Agreement subordinated the plaintiff's unsecured debt to secured investors, preventing judgment.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial, concluding the loans were advanced and remained unpaid, and that the Priorities Agreement did not apply to the unsecured loans.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff contractor's action for additional compensation arising from unexpected subsurface soil conditions during a sewer construction project.

The municipality argued the claim was barred by the contract's strict notice provisions, a release executed by the contractor, and the expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial on all three grounds due to an insufficient evidentiary record provided by the municipality, particularly regarding the parties' course of conduct, the scope of the release's exceptions, and the exact date the claim was discovered.

The applicant was successful on the application and sought costs of $20,000 plus HST.

The respondent argued for reduced costs of $15,000 due to divided success, claiming the applicant abandoned some relief at the hearing.

The court found no evidence that the respondent incurred additional costs due to the abandoned relief.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $17,157.72, all inclusive.

The applicants brought an application seeking a declaration that an Option Agreement affecting their real estate was invalid.

They argued the respondent breached the agreement by failing to pay a proportionate share of property taxes for over two years, and that the agreement violated the subdivision control provisions of the Planning Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding no breach of the tax provision because the respondent had maintained a credit balance through estimated lump-sum payments.

While the court agreed the Option Agreement technically violated section 50(3)(b) of the Planning Act by allowing the grantor to retain a fee in abutting lands, it held the agreement was saved by section 50(21) because it contained an express condition making it subject to Planning Act compliance.

The applicant brought an application for a declaration that a right-of-way granted by the respondent municipality in 1971 included the right to permit parking on the property.

The municipality argued the right-of-way only allowed for access and egress.

The court applied principles of contract and easement interpretation, considering the historical context and subsequent conduct of the parties.

The court declared that the right-of-way included the ancillary right to permit parking to access commercial premises, provided it was non-exclusive and did not amount to occupation.

The applicant property owner sought a declaration that a 'right of first refusal to purchase' granted to the respondent upon the sale of the property was void due to frustration.

The applicant argued that the withdrawal of an adjacent landowner from a planned land assembly rendered the development project impossible.

The court determined that the right was an option to purchase creating an interest in land, not a mere right of first refusal.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the withdrawal of the adjacent landowner was a foreseen event provided for in the parties' agreements and did not render the provision of the commercial space impossible.

The court also held that the right did not violate the rule against perpetuities.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to recover amounts allegedly owing on eighteen loans advanced to the defendants between 1990 and 1995.

The defendants raised several issues, including whether the demand loans were converted to shareholder advances, disputes over repayment amounts and allocations, and limitation period defences.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence, particularly regarding the characterization of the loans and the credibility of the parties, created genuine issues requiring a trial that could not be resolved using the fact-finding powers under Rule 20.