Sarah Wilson Corman

K.S.P. Holdings Inc. (KSP) appealed a Master's decision that dismissed its motions to quash a summons to examine its counsel and to strike an expert affidavit.

KSP's underlying motion sought to stay the action due to Tallman Truck Centre Limited's (Tallman) alleged late disclosure of a litigation agreement with co-defendant Secure Capital Advisors Inc. The court found that the Master erred by allowing the examination of opposing counsel and admitting expert evidence on issues irrelevant to the abuse of process analysis, which, according to Handley Estate, focuses on immediate disclosure and does not require proof of prejudice.

The appeal was granted, quashing the summons and striking the affidavit.

The defendant Kaszas brought a motion to exclude the plaintiff D'Onofrio from her examination for discovery, alleging intimidation.

The court reviewed the principles for exclusion, emphasizing that a party's inherent right to be present is lost only in exceptional circumstances, requiring the moving party to prove intimidation on a balance of probabilities.

The court found that Kaszas's evidence of anxiety and discomfort, based on a single past phone call, did not meet the objective standard required to demonstrate a real and substantial probability of intimidation.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for a declaration that she holds a permanent easement over part of the respondent's property.

The two parties own neighbouring houses in Toronto.

The appellant claimed a right of easement over the passageway between the properties based on historical use by the former owner of her property for cleaning and repairs.

The application judge found that the historical use was permissive and infrequent, not "as of right" as required for a prescriptive easement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the application judge's characterization of the occasional permissive use and affirming that the threshold for establishing an easement is high.

Former psychiatric patients alleged that experimental ‘social therapy’ programs at a provincial psychiatric facility between 1968 and 1979 constituted torture and unlawful experimentation.

The plaintiffs moved to amend their statement of claim to add five additional former patients as plaintiffs decades after the events.

The defendants argued the claims were statute‑barred under historical limitation provisions in the Medical Act, Health Disciplines Act, Mental Hospitals Act, and Mental Health Act.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that those limitation provisions applied where the alleged conduct amounted to torture rather than professional services or treatment.

The motion to amend and add the additional plaintiffs was granted without prejudice to the defendants’ right to later raise limitation defences.