SCJ 2021

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion under Rule 44 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the interim recovery of their personal property from the defendant moving companies.

The defendants claimed a storer's lien under the Repair and Storage Lien Act (RSLA) for unpaid moving and storage fees, relying on a contract signed on the day of the move.

The court found substantial grounds that the binding agreement was the initial quotation, not the document signed under pressure on moving day.

The court also held the RSLA did not apply as the agreement was fundamentally for moving, not storage.

The court granted the plaintiffs interim possession of their property, conditional on a net payment of $700 to account for the value of services received, less credits and costs.

The defendant brought a motion to stay the Ontario action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff had sued the defendant in Ontario on a personal guarantee related to a promissory note, despite the guarantee containing a New York choice of law and non-exclusive forum selection clause.

The court applied the Van Breda factors and concluded that New York was clearly the more appropriate forum, noting the risk of inconsistent results and the efficiency of applying New York law in a New York court.

The motion was granted and the action was stayed.

The self-represented defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim filed a counterclaim against numerous parties, including government ministries and officials, alleging complicity in his wrongful conviction for civil contempt.

The court conducted a review under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the counterclaim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the claims against the government defendants, finding they were bound to fail due to judicial immunity and constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a subsisting court order.

The claims against the police and private investigators were not dismissed, though the court strongly advised the litigant to seek legal advice to properly plead his causes of action.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend her Statement of Claim to substitute the underwriter, Industrial Alliance, for the originally named defendants (the claims administrator and the policy name) under the doctrine of misnomer.

The plaintiff had purchased travel medical insurance and was denied coverage for a $90,000 US medical bill.

The court found that the plaintiff clearly intended to sue the issuer of the policy and that Industrial Alliance would have known it was the intended defendant upon reading the claim.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to the proposed defendant.

The plaintiff brought a defamation action against the defendant regarding Twitter posts that highlighted the plaintiff's past involvement with white supremacist organizations and criticized the City of Hamilton for employing him in its IT department.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the defamation claim had substantial merit, the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant had no valid defences of fair comment and justification.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish that the harm he suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendant's expressions regarding municipal accountability and public safety.

The applicants, a chiropractic business, sought urgent relief after receiving a Notice to Terminate their commercial lease from the respondent landlord.

The core issue was whether the applicants had validly exercised their second five-year option to renew the lease.

The court found that despite the lack of a formal lease document and some irregularities, the applicants had provided timely notice of their intent to renew, and the landlord's subsequent conduct, including rent negotiations, indicated acceptance.

The court concluded the lease was in effect and properly extended.

The accused was found guilty of attempted murder and pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing a man and his girlfriend on a public transit bus.

The victims had intervened to stop the accused from abusing his own girlfriend.

The Crown sought a sentence of 16 to 18 years, while the defence sought 6 years.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the brutal nature of the unprovoked attack and the accused's criminal record, against mitigating factors such as his guilty pleas, remorse, rehabilitative efforts, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a sentence of 9 years for attempted murder and 3 years concurrent for aggravated assault, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The parties separated after a history of family violence and high conflict.

The mother sought sole decision-making and primary residency of their two children, while the father sought joint decision-making and shared residency.

The older child had refused contact with the father, while the younger child, who has ADHD, continued on a shared schedule.

The court ordered joint decision-making with a parallel parenting tie-breaking mechanism, allocating final authority on specific domains to each parent.

The younger child was ordered to continue on a shared 5-2-2-5 schedule, while the older child was ordered to reside primarily with the mother but transition to alternate weekends with the father following reunification therapy.

The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury claim and the co-defendant municipality's crossclaim arising from a motor vehicle collision.

The plaintiff, who had a stop sign, entered the intersection and was struck by the defendant, who had the right of way.

The court found the plaintiff's expert report unreliable because it assumed the plaintiff stopped 14 meters back from the intersection, which was contrary to evidence and common sense.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant had no reasonable opportunity to avoid the collision, and granted the motion.

The defendants in two related class actions brought a motion seeking production of Class Counsel's detailed time and fee records (Fee Details) in advance of a scheduled fee approval motion.

Class Counsel sought a multiplier of approximately three on its docketed time, totaling nearly $5 million in fees.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Fee Details were necessary for the defendants and the court to assess whether the requested fees were fair and reasonable, particularly given Class Counsel's assertions that there was no duplication of work among the national consortium of law firms.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $39,434.18 following a successful motion where the applicant's conduct was found to demonstrate bad faith.

The self-represented applicant opposed the quantum, asserting impecuniosity and over-lawyering by the respondent's counsel.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments, finding no evidence of impecuniosity and concluding that the time spent by the respondent's counsel was proportional to the complexity of the issues.

The applicant was ordered to pay the full amount claimed.

The plaintiff sought leave to assert a statutory cause of action for secondary market misrepresentation under the Securities Act and to certify a class action against SNC-Lavalin and its directors.

The plaintiff alleged that SNC failed to timely disclose a material change when it was informed by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada that it would not be invited to negotiate a remediation agreement regarding criminal charges.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the communication was not a 'change' in the business, operations, or capital of SNC, and therefore not a 'material change' requiring immediate disclosure.

The court also declined to certify the common law negligent misrepresentation claim, as reliance would be an individual issue and the statutory claim was not viable.

The non-parties, who occupied the subject property, brought an urgent motion to stay the enforcement of a Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate obtained by the plaintiff mortgagee against the defendant mortgagor.

The non-parties relied on Rule 21.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the non-parties lacked standing to rely on Rule 21.01(3) as they were not defendants in the mortgage action.

The court also declined to set aside the order granting the Writ of Possession, noting the request was not properly before the court and constituted an impermissible collateral attack.

The parties separated and initially agreed to a graduated shared parenting schedule.

Following an incident where the mother was charged with assaulting one of the children (charges later withdrawn), the father sought sole decision-making and primary residence.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) recommended sole custody to the father with limited parenting time for the mother.

The court rejected the OCL's recommendations, finding the investigation flawed and the father's unilateral actions concerning.

The court ordered a week-on/week-off shared parenting schedule and a parallel parenting regime, granting the mother final decision-making authority over health and the father final decision-making authority over education.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to deliver a jury notice more than two years after the close of pleadings, citing counsel's inadvertence.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to strike the jury notice.

The court found that while the delay was due to inadvertence, granting leave would cause real and substantial prejudice to the plaintiff because the local court had suspended civil jury trials until at least September 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant's motion was dismissed, and the plaintiff's motion to strike the jury notice was granted.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine after arriving at Pearson Airport from Colombia.

He was referred to secondary inspection as a contraband target.

A border services officer searched his luggage and found cocaine in a rum bottle.

The accused brought a pre-trial motion to exclude his statements and the cocaine, alleging breaches of his Charter rights under ss. 7, 8, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found that the accused was detained when the officer formed a strong and particularized suspicion, and that his s. 10 rights were breached by a subsequent question.

The court also found that the RCMP breached his s. 10(b) rights by failing to facilitate contact with a lawyer of his choosing.

Statements made after the breaches were excluded under s. 24(2), but the cocaine and earlier statements were admitted.

The defendant obstetricians brought a motion for partial summary judgment in a medical negligence action, arguing the plaintiffs' expert reports were insufficient to establish standard of care or causation.

The motion was brought shortly before a scheduled ten-week trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that partial summary judgment would not be proportionate, cost-effective, or timely, and risked inconsistent findings and duplication of resources.

The court also noted that the sufficiency of the complex expert evidence was better assessed in the context of a full trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment following her without-cause dismissal by the defendant.

The court found summary judgment appropriate and determined that the defendant's severance offer of 11.5 months was not within the reasonable range.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court fixed the reasonable notice period at 16 months, capped at 15.5 months due to the plaintiff's successful mitigation.

The court awarded damages totaling $137,048.41, which included base salary, lost bonus, pension matching contributions, and benefits over the notice period.

The applicant sought a final order for the disposition of sale proceeds of a jointly held home, spousal support, and costs.

The matter proceeded to an uncontested trial after the respondent's pleadings were struck for failing to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The court found the respondent was unjustly enriched by the applicant's contributions to a hydro bill and second mortgage funds, and ordered reimbursement.

The court also imputed income to both parties and awarded the applicant spousal support of $589 per month for five years.

Due to the respondent's bad faith conduct, including defying court orders and abandoning the applicant's belongings, costs of $18,000 were awarded to the applicant on an elevated scale.

The plaintiff, a long-term executive director of a not-for-profit chamber of commerce, sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause.

The employer alleged the plaintiff breached her fiduciary duties through various financial irregularities, including altering a banking document, taking unauthorized vacation pay, and allowing an unauthorized pay raise to continue.

The court found that the plaintiff was a fiduciary and that her cumulative misconduct and poor judgment irredeemably fractured the employer's trust.

The court concluded the employer had just cause for termination and dismissed the plaintiff's claims for notice, aggravated damages, and punitive damages.