SCJ 2015

The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief restraining a shareholder from selling shares of her holding company that indirectly owned shares in a family‑controlled corporation, and from disclosing corporate financial information.

The defendants brought a cross‑motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim and sought partial summary judgment on a counterclaim seeking various corporate governance orders under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The court held that although the separation agreement did not expressly restrict sales of the holding company shares, an implied term prevented either party from disposing of their interests in the holding companies without the other’s consent.

A permanent injunction was granted preventing the sale of the holding company shares without consent.

The court rejected restrictions on the shareholder’s access to financial statements but granted limited corporate governance relief including annual meetings, financial statement delivery, and a trust accounting.

In a civil contempt sentencing arising from repeated breaches of an order prohibiting unauthorized chiropractic practice, the court held that denunciation, deterrence, public protection, and proportionality required a serious sanction.

Although the respondent had taken some late steps to purge the contempt and raised caregiving and health concerns, the court found that a suspended disposition would be wholly inadequate given the prolonged and defiant misconduct.

A six-month conditional sentence with house arrest, community service, strict compliance terms, and monitoring provisions was imposed.

The court also ordered sequestration of the respondent's office and equipment and awarded substantial indemnity costs.

The moving defendants sought to set aside a noting in default, set aside a default judgment, stay a notice of garnishment, and obtain release of garnished funds in a construction deficiency action involving allegedly improper installation of paving stones.

Applying the Rule 19.03 and Rule 19.08 frameworks, the court found the motion was brought promptly, the defendants had a plausible explanation rooted in their reasonable reliance on an insurer and an erroneous dismissal order, and they had an arguable defence on standing, warranty, and damages.

The prejudice to the defendants from enforcing a judgment exceeding $120,000 outweighed any compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court also held there was no basis to maintain a pre-judgment asset freeze through garnishment in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

The accused was tried on charges arising from a fatal ATV rollover after a night of social drinking.

The court held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcohol, preferring the evidence of the eyewitness and attending officer over unreliable lay observations from other young witnesses.

The court further held that, even if impairment had been proven, causation was not established because the rollover was explained by the vehicle's instability and sharp turning capability at low speed.

The accused was acquitted of impaired driving causing death and over-80 causing death, but convicted of taking the ATV without consent.

In a judge and jury motor vehicle trial involving catastrophic injuries, the court considered whether future medication costs should be reduced to reflect potential public drug coverage available when the plaintiff turned 65.

Applying purposive statutory interpretation to s. 267.8(12)(a)(v) of the Insurance Act, the court held that ODBP coverage is not a 'payment' to which the plaintiff is entitled because no money or transferable value is delivered to the insured person.

As a result, any future ODBP benefit was not assignable to the defendants.

The jury was therefore entitled to consider possible future public drug coverage as a contingency in assessing future medication costs.

The moving defendant sought summary judgment dismissing a motor vehicle personal injury action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that discoverability could not be fairly determined on the paper record because the issue was intertwined with the plaintiff's actual pain, dysfunction, medical advice, and when a reasonable person would have known a tort action was an appropriate means to seek a remedy.

Applying the summary judgment framework and discoverability principles in the motor vehicle threshold context, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion was therefore dismissed.

The debtor filed a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

At the first meeting of creditors, the proposal trustee allowed several disputed creditors to vote, and the proposal was overwhelmingly defeated, resulting in a deemed assignment in bankruptcy.

The debtor appealed the trustee's decision, arguing the disputed creditors' claims should have been expunged due to unliquidated damages claims and equitable set-off.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the trustee correctly allowed the votes based on the record, and noted that the proposal would have been defeated even without the disputed votes.

The moving parties sought distribution of funds held in court to the estate trustee so that estate accounts could be passed.

The responding party opposed the motion and attempted, through his factum, to revive damages claims against the estate arising from lost income associated with estate rental properties.

The court held that the prior motion had been dismissed by the Court of Appeal and could not be reheard on a supplemented record because the matter was res judicata.

The funds were ordered paid out to the estate trustee in trust for the estate, while any remaining personal damages claim against the individual defendant could proceed to trial or by summary procedure.

Les demandeurs ont poursuivi l’exploitant et le propriétaire d’un parc aquatique après une chute ayant causé une fracture du coude.

Le procès portait uniquement sur la responsabilité des occupantes au regard de la Loi sur la responsabilité des occupants.

Le tribunal a conclu que la preuve n’établissait pas, selon la prépondérance des probabilités, l’existence d’une condition dangereuse ayant causé la chute, notamment en raison d’incohérences importantes entre les témoignages au procès et les interrogatoires préalables.

La preuve des défenderesses sur l’entretien continu et l’état impeccable des lieux a été retenue.

L’action a donc été rejetée sur la question de la responsabilité.

The applicant brought a motion to change a prior custody and access order, seeking sole custody of the child, reduced access for the respondent, changes to transportation arrangements, and contribution to extraordinary expenses.

The respondent opposed the motion, sought custody himself, and brought a contempt motion alleging the applicant breached the earlier order by restricting access.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the applicant remaining in St. Catharines after completing her education, contrary to the expectations underlying the original order.

Applying the best interests of the child under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court maintained joint custody but modified the respondent’s parenting time to every third weekend with expanded summer access.

The request for s. 7 contributions and the respondent’s contempt motion were both dismissed.

In a costs endorsement following a guardianship application, the court held that the Public Guardian and Trustee was entitled to its costs after successfully obtaining confirmation of its refusal to issue a certificate of guardianship to the respondent.

Applying the modern civil-litigation approach to costs in estate and capacity matters, the court found it appropriate that the incapable person's assets bear part of the costs because the estate benefited from confirmation of the statutory guardianship.

However, the respondent's persistent and unfounded opposition materially increased the Public Guardian and Trustee's costs, justifying a personal costs order against her.

Full indemnity costs of $5,942.50 were fixed, with $1,000 payable by the respondent and the balance payable from the incapable person's assets.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a stay of firearm-related charges on the basis of unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Morin framework, the court examined the 1,035-day period from charge to scheduled trial, deducting waived time and excluding delay attributable to the applicant, co-accused, and inherent case requirements.

The court held that most of the impugned delay arose from institutional limits and co-accused scheduling issues, with only a limited period attributable to the Crown.

Given the minimal prejudice flowing from delay itself and the serious public interest in trying the charges, the application was dismissed.

On a Crown application in a criminal jury proceeding, the court ruled on the admissibility of Somali language translation evidence relating to intercepted private communications forming a critical part of the prosecution case.

Applying the expert-opinion admissibility framework under Mohan, as informed by Abbey, the court held that the proposed witness was qualified by experience to provide opinion evidence translating the Somali portions of the recordings.

The court found that the defence objections concerning training, methodology, dialect knowledge, and objectivity went primarily to weight rather than admissibility.

The probative value of the opinions substantially exceeded any prejudicial effect, and the evidence was admitted with procedural directions governing how the recordings, transcripts, and viva voce translations would be presented to the jury.

Sentencing decision arising from a planned group confrontation in a tunnel that led to robbery, assault, humiliation, and wounding of the victim.

The court found both offenders were youthful first offenders with strong rehabilitative progress and limited responsibility for the later escalation of violence, which neither was found to have caused or foreseen.

Applying the principles in ss. 718, 718.1, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, the court declined to place primary weight on general deterrence and denunciation to the extent urged by the Crown.

One offender received a suspended sentence, 12 months' probation, and community service, while the other received 40 days intermittent custody followed by probation and community service, together with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 21 to strike portions of the statement of defence relying on a ski resort waiver and release, arguing that s. 9(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 prevented the supplier from contracting out of liability for negligent provision of services.

The court held that the issue was novel in Ontario in the context of ski resort waivers and should not be determined on a Rule 21 motion without a full factual record and possible expert evidence.

Because the threshold issue failed, the statutory interpretation question was not decided.

The motion was dismissed with agreed costs to the defendants.

The applicant brought an oppression application arising from prolonged noise and vibration from elevators and mechanical equipment affecting a condominium unit.

The court held that the condominium corporation failed to adequately repair and maintain the common elements after years of investigation with little meaningful action, and that its reliance on an alleged by-law issue concerning a converted room was a red herring.

Applying the oppression framework, the court found the applicant's reasonable expectations were breached and that the respondent's conduct amounted to oppression, unfair prejudice, and unfair disregard.

The court awarded $30,000 in damages, dismissed the records-production and $150 fee claims, and remained seized to supervise remedial steps.

A court-appointed receiver sought an order compelling several service providers to remit commissions allegedly owed under license agreements following the receivership of a home services business formerly operating under a national retailer’s brand.

The respondents argued the receiver had repudiated the license agreements by shutting down the system that generated service leads and announcing it would not continue operations, thereby relieving them of contractual obligations.

The court held that the receiver’s conduct constituted repudiation of the agreements, which the respondents accepted.

As a result, the receiver could not enforce contractual payment obligations.

Claims based on unjust enrichment and quantum meruit were also rejected, particularly given the inequitable circumstances created by the receiver’s actions and the continued enforcement of stay provisions against the respondents.

A condominium corporation sought an equitable lien and priority over a registered mortgage for substantial unpaid common expense arrears relating to numerous units.

The corporation argued that the unit owner had been unjustly enriched by failing to pay common expenses and that the court should grant equitable relief or revive the statutory condominium lien that had expired.

The court held that the Condominium Act, 1998 provides a comprehensive statutory scheme governing liens for common expenses and that courts cannot create an equitable lien where the statute occupies the field.

Even if such a lien existed, it would not take priority over the previously registered mortgage under the Land Titles Act.

The court further held that a purchaser or mortgagee is entitled to rely on the representations contained in a status certificate and is not required to investigate beyond it.

The motion seeking priority or revival of the lien was dismissed.

In a family law motion concerning support-related disclosure, the court granted extensive financial and corporate disclosure to permit the moving party's accountant to assess the responding party's income for child and spousal support purposes.

The court found the responding party's financial affairs and related corporate structures sufficiently complex to require expert review, and applied the Rule 24(12) interim disbursements jurisprudence to level the playing field.

An interim disbursement of $14,125 was ordered for the accounting report, but the request for interim legal fees was refused.

The responding party's request for disclosure from a non-party alleged common-law partner was adjourned because the non-party had not been served.

On a pre-trial application in a criminal jury matter, the accused sought permission to remain seated at counsel table or, alternatively, directly behind defence counsel rather than in the defendant’s box.

The court held that although the customary position of an accused is in the dock and the Criminal Code is silent on courtroom seating, the trial judge retains discretion to depart from that practice.

In the particular courtroom, the glass-enclosed design of the defendant’s box carried a stigma that could reasonably influence the jury and also impeded counsel-client communication.

The application was granted in part, and the accused was permitted to sit behind defence counsel for the duration of the trial unless otherwise ordered.