SCJ 2015

The plaintiffs alleged negligence against a lawyer who discharged their mortgages without authorization, claiming they had never met the lawyer or signed discharge authorizations.

The lawyer maintained that the plaintiffs attended his office, produced identification, and executed written authorizations.

The court evaluated conflicting testimony, contemporaneous documentation, and the lawyer’s standard practice for client identification.

Finding the lawyer’s evidence more credible and supported by photocopies of the plaintiffs’ identification and witnessed signatures, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had likely attended and authorized the discharges or, alternatively, that the lawyer had exercised reasonable care consistent with the applicable standard.

The plaintiffs also failed to prove the alleged outstanding mortgage advances.

The negligence claim was dismissed.

Following a family law trial concerning spousal support and equalization of net family property, the court addressed costs.

The parties disputed entitlement to costs and relied on multiple offers to settle, some of which were made on the eve of trial and therefore fell outside the cost consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that although success was divided, the respondent spouse was overall more successful on the most contentious issues, including the quantum of spousal support.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded, but full or substantial indemnity costs were declined given the complexity of the issues and partial success of the other party.

The court also declined to award pre‑judgment interest on the equalization payment.

The plaintiff's motor vehicle accident action was dismissed after failing to meet the statutory threshold, despite a jury awarding $30,000 in general damages.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found that the defendant's counsel engaged in uncivil conduct, failed to cooperate on a joint document brief, delivered late expert reports, and repeatedly ignored a trial management order and court deadlines.

Although the defendant was the successful party and would normally be entitled to costs of approximately $100,000, the court exercised its discretion to deprive the defendant of costs due to counsel's misconduct.

The defendant was ordered to pay $441.13 for half the copying costs of the joint document brief.

The defendant driver of the lead vehicle in a rear-end collision brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and the co-defendant's crossclaim against her.

The co-defendant driver of the rear vehicle opposed the motion, alleging the lead vehicle stopped suddenly.

The court applied the presumption that the rear driver is at fault and found the co-defendant failed to discharge the onus to show the accident did not occur as a result of his negligence.

The motion was granted and the claims against the lead driver were dismissed.

The Attorney General of Canada brought an action for unjust enrichment to recover $194,000 USD mistakenly paid to the defendants.

The funds were intended for another claimant under a United Nations compensation program but were erroneously sent to the defendant wife.

The defendants cashed the cheque and spent the funds, later arguing estoppel and change of position.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the defendants knew or ought to have known the funds were misdirected.

The court rejected the defendants' defences, finding no juristic reason for the enrichment, and ordered the defendants to repay the outstanding balance of the funds plus interest and costs.

Dr. Esty sold his dental practice to Dr. Douris.

Two former employees subsequently sued Dr. Douris and his professional corporation for wrongful dismissal.

Dr. Douris counterclaimed against the employees and joined Dr. Esty, alleging negligent misrepresentation regarding the practice's patient numbers and seeking indemnification for the wrongful dismissal claims.

Dr. Esty brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the counterclaims against him.

The court granted the motion, finding no evidence of misrepresentation, reliance, or breach of contract, and concluding that the indemnity clause in the sale agreement did not cover wrongful dismissal claims arising after the closing.

Following a successful negligence trial where damages were agreed at approximately $7.85 million, the plaintiffs sought costs of $660,000.

The plaintiffs had previously settled with two defendants for $1,000,000 and received costs up to October 2005.

The plaintiffs beat their Rule 49 offer to settle made on March 12, 2015.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixing the total costs payable by the remaining defendant at $400,000 all inclusive.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from a series of alleged domestic assaults against his spouse over a two‑year period, including assault, assault with a weapon, uttering threats to cause death, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement.

The case turned primarily on credibility assessments between the complainant and the accused, with supporting testimony from a family member and a community counsellor, as well as medical and documentary evidence.

The court applied the principles from R. v. W.(D.) in assessing the accused’s testimony and emphasized that the burden of proof remained on the Crown.

After rejecting the accused’s evidence as not credible and accepting the complainant’s evidence as reliable and internally consistent, the court found the Crown had proven each count beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant sought to set aside Minutes of Settlement and a final order resolving child support, spousal support, and property-related claims arising from a long common-law relationship, alleging material non-disclosure, misrepresentation, and contractual unfairness.

The court found that the respondent had deliberately misled the applicant about Spanish property and had failed to disclose some stock options and shares, but had not misrepresented his untaxed offshore income.

Applying the two-stage framework under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, the court held there was no duress, undue influence, or other flaw in the bargaining process sufficient to invalidate the agreement under contract law.

Although some non-disclosure was proven, the court found it was not a material inducement to settlement, the applicant had received substantial benefits, the respondent had fully performed the agreement, and the application was brought years later.

The application to set aside the settlement and order was dismissed.

During the distribution phase of a class proceeding, class counsel and counsel for five class members sought court approval of an instruction to the claims administrator to resolve a potential Human Rights Code complaint regarding the distribution plan.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it could not endorse the proposed instruction or the payment of costs from the settlement fund without ruling on the merits of the underlying dispute.

The court directed that a full motion for directions proceed.

In a trial for sexual assault and uttering death threats, the Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit a letter purportedly written by the accused to the complainant while he was in custody.

The defence opposed, arguing lack of provenance and that the prejudicial effect of a line apologizing for 'ruff' sex outweighed its probative value.

The court held that the letter was presumptively admissible as a party admission, finding on a balance of probabilities that the accused authored it.

The court ruled the letter admissible, leaving the parties to agree on edits to mitigate any prejudicial effect.

The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality for damages after a retaining wall on the plaintiff's property collapsed.

The plaintiff alleged the municipality negligently approved the wall's design and failed to follow a third-party engineer's recommendation to conduct a complete visual inspection.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an agreement that would create a duty of care regarding the wall's design.

Furthermore, the municipality's prior inspection and repair of the wall constituted a gratuitous undertaking, and there was no detrimental reliance by the plaintiff to ground liability.

Remarkable Energy Inc. pledged its feed-in tariff (FIT) contract with the Ontario Power Authority as security for a loan from Crosscurrent Energy Corp. Crosscurrent foreclosed on the security after Remarkable failed to respond to a notice of foreclosure within 15 days.

Remarkable applied for relief from forfeiture.

Crosscurrent argued Remarkable acted in bad faith by failing to negotiate a final price for the sale of the FIT contract.

The court found no bad faith, noted the demand for payment lacked proper details, and held the breach was not grave compared to the value of the FIT contract.

The court granted Remarkable relief from forfeiture.

The applicants appealed a decision by the Township's Chief Building Official to issue a building permit for the construction of a riding arena on a neighbouring property.

The subject property was located within the Oak Ridges Moraine Linkage Zone, which permitted agricultural uses but not riding arenas.

The court found that the riding arena was not a permitted agricultural use under the zoning by-law and that its construction constituted major development requiring a watershed plan under the Official Plan.

The court concluded that the building permit was issued in error, rescinded the Chief Building Official's decision, and revoked the permit.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondents to permanently remove a dog weighing over 25 pounds from their unit, in compliance with the condominium's rules.

The respondents argued the dog was a service/therapy dog required for the respondent's mental disability and sought accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The court found the respondents failed to establish a disability within the meaning of the Code, as the medical evidence only cited stress and lacked a specific diagnosis.

The court ordered the removal of the dog and declared the applicant had not discriminated against the respondents.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child support, child support arrears, and section 7 expenses, seeking to impute an income of $78,000 to the respondent.

The court found the respondent had unexplained bank deposits in 2014 and imputed his income at $64,589.33 for that year.

For 2015, the court found the respondent intentionally underemployed and imputed an income of $28,080.00 based on his capacity to work full-time.

Interim child support and section 7 arrears were calculated at $8,364.97, which were satisfied by funds previously released from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The moving parties sought a stay of five construction lien actions commenced by the construction manager and general contractor, arguing the disputes were subject to contractual arbitration clauses.

The dispute arose from a large construction project involving numerous subcontractors and more than fifty lien claims consolidated into a construction lien reference under the Construction Lien Act.

The court considered whether arbitration should proceed despite the risk of multiplicity of proceedings and the exclusion of subcontractor lien claimants from the arbitral process.

The court held that the moving parties had waived arbitration by first commencing litigation, had delayed unduly before seeking arbitration, and that a stay would cause unfairness and fragmented proceedings.

Exercising discretion under the Arbitration Act, 1991 and the Courts of Justice Act, the court refused the stay so that all disputes could proceed in the single court reference.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of assault against his wife.

At trial, the judge acquitted the respondent after finding the complainant credible but the respondent not credible, yet still having a reasonable doubt.

The trial judge had excluded evidence from the complainant's father regarding what the complainant told him on the phone during the incident, ruling it inadmissible hearsay.

The appeal court found that the trial judge erred in excluding this evidence, as it was admissible as a prior consistent statement to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication raised by the defence during cross-examination.

The appeal court held that admitting this evidence could have positively impacted the complainant's credibility and negatively impacted the respondent's, leading to a flawed application of the W.(D.) framework.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The accused was charged with multiple offences including possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a loaded firearm after police executed a search warrant at an apartment.

The accused argued he did not have possession of the items as he had been kicked out of the apartment by the lessee a week prior.

The court found that circumstantial evidence, including the accused's ongoing access, personal belongings, and statements to undercover officers, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he had knowledge and a measure of control over the illicit items.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown and defence agreed on a joint submission of four years' imprisonment but disagreed on whether the accused should receive pre-sentence custody credit for time spent in custody on separate, outstanding charges in another jurisdiction.

The court accepted the joint submission of four years but declined to grant credit for the time served on the outstanding charges, holding that such credit should be determined when those specific charges are resolved.