SCJ 2021

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim arising from the sale of a gas station business.

The court found the claim was irregular as it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against one defendant, lacked required particulars for allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and created a multiplicity of proceedings by raising issues that should have been addressed in an existing parallel action between the parties.

The motion was granted and the statement of claim was struck in its entirety.

The plaintiff, a minority shareholder, moved for an injunction to block the impending sale of the corporation's sole real estate asset to a third party.

The plaintiff had previously initiated an oppression action against the majority shareholders and directors, alleging mismanagement and conflicts of interest.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the propriety of the sale.

However, the court dismissed the motion because the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm, as any potential losses were quantifiable and could be compensated through a damages award against the directors personally.

The defendant, Metrolinx, brought a motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel of record, arguing that counsel was a material witness to the negotiations underlying the plaintiffs' claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

The court applied the Essa factors and found that the defendant failed to establish that counsel would likely be called as a witness or that his evidence was necessary.

The court also held that the defendant was not entitled to disclosure of solicitor-client privileged communications.

The motion was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident at a social gathering.

The complainant testified that the accused forced himself upon her and penetrated her despite her repeated refusals.

The accused claimed the sexual activity was consensual.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework, rejected the accused's evidence, and found the complainant's testimony compelling and corroborated by DNA evidence, physical injuries, and post-offence conduct.

The accused was found guilty.

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

He argued the trial judge erred in her s. 24(2) Charter analysis by admitting breath sample evidence despite finding breaches of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) rights, and that the breath technician's certificate was defective.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's Grant analysis was adequate and entitled to deference, as the breaches were not serious and the admission of evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court also held that the certificate's deficiencies could not be raised for the first time on appeal and were cured by other evidence at trial.

The applicants, including a legal clinic and family friends, brought applications under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to have the respondent declared a vexatious litigant.

The respondent had engaged in years of relentless litigation across multiple jurisdictions following his teenage daughter's decision to withdraw from his custody, repeatedly alleging abduction, fraud, and conspiracy against anyone involved.

The court found that the respondent persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings and conducted them in a vexatious manner, continually attempting to re-litigate issues already decided against him.

The applications were granted, the respondent was declared a vexatious litigant, and he was prohibited from instituting or continuing related proceedings without leave of the court.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased parenting time, and the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for a declaration of non-parentage, arguing the applicant was merely a sperm donor.

The court found that because there was no written pre-conception agreement as contemplated by the Children's Law Reform Act, the conflicting evidence regarding the parties' oral agreement created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Both motions were dismissed, maintaining the status quo for parenting time to ensure stability for the child pending a final determination.

The bankrupt, his father, and a creditor (his former partner) brought overlapping motions in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The court ordered equitable set-off of multiple costs awards made in family and bankruptcy proceedings between the bankrupt and the creditor, effective September 28, 2018.

The court dismissed the father's claim for a charge over the balance of the costs award, finding that solicitor's liens and charging orders do not apply to non-lawyers who fund litigation.

The balance of the costs award was ordered payable to the bankruptcy trustee.

The court also dismissed the creditor's request for a stay of enforcement and declined to dismiss the creditor's civil action for delay at this stage.

The plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase a newly built home from the defendant.

After discovering the home would not have a garage door access as expected, the plaintiff sent an angry email threatening litigation.

The defendant treated this as an anticipatory breach, refused to close the transaction, and sold the property to a related charity.

The court found that the plaintiff's email was an idle threat and did not amount to repudiation or a breach of the duty of good faith.

The defendant's refusal to close constituted a repudiation of the contract.

The plaintiff was awarded damages assessed as of the date of breach.

The plaintiff condominium corporation appealed an Associate Justice's order striking several paragraphs from its Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim.

The underlying action alleged that the defendants conspired to cause the plaintiff to release easements over adjacent land for little or no value.

The Associate Justice struck paragraphs referring to the financial position of non-parties as irrelevant and scandalous, and struck other paragraphs for pleading evidence rather than material facts.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the Associate Justice's exercise of discretion.

The applicant, YMCA of Greater Toronto, sought to extend and amend a Norwich Order previously granted against several banks to investigate an alleged $2.2 million fraud involving the Canada-Ontario Job Grant program.

The applicant also sought to extend the time for service of its Statement of Claim against the alleged fraudsters to avoid tipping them off before the investigation was complete.

The court granted the extension of the Norwich Order and amended it to include accounts that transferred funds to or from the known accounts.

The court also granted the extension of time to serve the Statement of Claim, finding it in the interests of justice.

The applicants, a group of 44 condominium owners, brought a motion for a compliance order against the condominium corporation regarding the replacement of exterior windows, the reserve fund study, and the failure to hold annual general meetings.

The court found that the corporation had failed to hold an AGM and elect directors as required by the Condominium Act.

The court ordered the corporation to hold an AGM and elections as soon as possible, and directed that the new board determine whether a new reserve fund study or bidding process for the windows is required.

The requests for immediate orders regarding the reserve fund study and bidding process were dismissed.

The moving parties, who were guarantors of a mortgage, sought summary judgment against the mortgagor corporation for indemnity after the mortgage fell into default.

The moving parties had not yet made any payments toward the mortgage debt.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that under the terms of the mortgage and the common law of subrogation, a guarantor's cause of action against the principal debtor does not crystallize until the guarantor actually makes a payment on the debt.

The self-represented plaintiff in a solicitor's negligence action requested a case conference after failing to comply with a court-ordered timetable.

The plaintiff had not provided an Affidavit of Documents by the deadline, arguing he was waiting for additional documents from the defendant.

The plaintiff also failed to attend his scheduled examination for discovery.

The court found the plaintiff in breach of the timetable, directed the parties to bring their respective motions regarding document production and discovery attendance in Masters' Court, and awarded costs of the case conference to the defendant.

The applicant sought to register two default judgments obtained in Newfoundland against the respondents in Ontario under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act.

The judgments arose from personal guarantees on a defaulted mortgage.

The respondents opposed registration, arguing they did not carry on business in Newfoundland, were not properly served, and that the judgments were obtained by fraud.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the respondents were directors of Newfoundland companies, were properly served in Ontario, and failed to provide evidence of fraud or a good defence.

The application was granted and the judgments were ordered registered in Ontario.

The parties sought costs following a motion where the plaintiff successfully amended her statement of claim but was unsuccessful in striking the jury, and the defendants successfully obtained an order for further medical assessments.

The court found the defendants were seeking an indulgence for the medical assessments and were not entitled to costs for that portion.

The defendants were awarded $750 in costs for successfully opposing the motion to strike the jury.

This decision resolves a carriage motion between two competing proposed class actions (the Bonnick Action and the Blackford-Hall Action) concerning alleged predatory practices in the consumer marketplace for HVAC equipment.

The court interpreted the newly enacted section 13.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, which focuses on efficiency, productivity, and proportionality.

The court granted carriage to the Bonnick Action, finding its regional scope and targeted case theory against the alleged mastermind and lender corporations to be more efficient and cost-effective than the Blackford-Hall Action's national scope and broader conspiracy claims against multiple defendants.

The respondent brought a motion to determine whether the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement regarding the assessment of accounts.

The matter came before the court but could not be accommodated for a full-day hearing.

The court adjourned the motion to a later date, noting that all materials had been served and uploaded.

At a case conference, the court scheduled a timetable for three upcoming motions: the defendants' motion to enforce a settlement, the plaintiff's counsel's motion to be removed as solicitor of record, and a motion for an order to continue given the plaintiff is an undischarged bankrupt.

The court directed that the order to continue be heard first, followed by the removal motion, and finally the motion to enforce the settlement.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the defendants' motion to enforce a settlement arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs' new counsel, retained shortly before the hearing, required time to finalize motion materials.

Despite the defendants' objection to the late request, the court granted a brief adjournment to prevent prejudice, ordering the plaintiffs to pay $500 in costs to the defendants.