SCJ 2023

This endorsement addresses a return of a matter concerning limitations on a Mareva injunction and living expenses.

Despite previous opportunities, no evidence was filed by the parties.

The Wei defendants did not seek any limitations.

Counsel for the Lin defendants reported difficulties obtaining instructions, non-compliance with court orders (affidavit, cross-examinations, costs), and a potential conflict of interest between Ms. Shinchi and Mr. Lin.

The plaintiffs highlighted the Lin defendants' continued non-compliance and alleged deliberate avoidance of asset disclosure.

The court ordered the Lin defendants to provide their address for personal service within seven days, failing which substituted service for a contempt motion via email was authorized.

The court declined to schedule further return dates for Mareva injunction issues and reserved costs.

The Crown applied to admit similar fact evidence against the accused, Raoul Saucier, in a sexual assault trial.

The Crown argued the evidence of a prior sexual assault conviction against K.D. was relevant to consent and the exploitation of vulnerable victims, highlighting similarities in the accused's conduct.

The court, applying the Handy test, found the asserted similarities between the prior conviction and the current allegations to be generic and lacking sufficient cogency to establish an objective improbability of coincidence.

Despite the judge-alone trial, the court found a significant risk of moral prejudice, concluding that the prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value.

The application was dismissed, rendering the similar fact evidence inadmissible.

This decision addresses a costs endorsement following a successful summary judgment motion by the defendants, which dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for anticipatory breach of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The court awarded costs of $50,000 to the defendants, including a previous $4,000 award.

The court considered factors such as the outcome, complexity, parties' conduct, and proportionality, reducing the defendants' requested amount due to duplication of effort and the plaintiff's partial success in adding a party, though this success was ultimately deemed a "pyrrhic victory" given the dismissal of the main action.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a four-day trial.

The Applicant sought full recovery costs of $66,220.84, citing her success and the Respondent's unreasonable and bad faith conduct, including failure to provide financial disclosure and asset depletion.

The Respondent, self-represented, requested more time for submissions, which was denied due to non-compliance with previous orders.

The court found the Respondent acted in bad faith, intending to inflict emotional harm and conceal financial status, and that his conduct was unreasonable.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the Applicant $50,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, and ordered these costs to be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office, as child support was the principal issue in the underlying trial.

Robert Reed, a former employee and minority shareholder of Cooper-Gordon Ltd. (CGL), brought a motion for leave to appeal an arbitral decision on questions of law under s. 45 of the Arbitrations Act, 1991.

Reed sought to appeal the arbitrator's findings on wrongful dismissal notice period, unpaid bonuses and RRSP contributions, share valuation, and claims for punitive damages or oppression remedy.

The court granted leave to appeal on two issues: the mathematical error in calculating the wrongful dismissal notice period (one month difference) and the arbitrator's omission to address Reed's claims for unpaid RRSP and bonus payments from 2016-2019.

Leave was denied for the share valuation, oppression/punitive damages, and procedural fairness claims, as these were deemed questions of fact or mixed fact and law, or lacked sufficient legal merit.

The accused sought a mistrial or adjournment of his jury trial after the jury panel inadvertently overheard discussions about his pre-trial incarceration.

The defence argued this created a risk of moral prejudice, while the Crown contended a pre-trial instruction would suffice.

The court granted the adjournment, finding it was in the interests of justice given the risk of moral prejudice, the inability to ascertain what jurors heard without further prejudice, and the fact that the trial had not yet commenced, distinguishing it from cases where mid-trial instructions cured similar disclosures.

This addendum to reasons on undertakings and refusals motions addresses Delta Plus Group's claim of litigation privilege over Refusal No. 10, which arose during the examination for discovery.

The court found that Delta failed to provide firsthand evidence from the document's creator to establish that the document was created for the dominant purpose of litigation, as required for litigation privilege.

Consequently, the court ordered Delta to answer the question.

This document serves as a citation placeholder for the case of R. v. Robinson, 2023 ONSC 5257.

The full reasons for judgment are explicitly stated as not being available at this time.

The plaintiff, Wiener Städtische Versicherung AG (VIG), a reinsurer, sought to recover funds from the defendant, Infrassure Ltd., a retrocessionaire, under a retrocession agreement.

VIG had paid its portion of a $140 million settlement to Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. (Zurich) for a business interruption claim by Vale (Canada) Limited.

Infrassure denied liability, arguing it was not contractually bound to follow the settlement and that Zurich failed to take proper and businesslike steps.

The court found that Infrassure was contractually bound by the "follow the settlements" clause and that Zurich had taken proper and businesslike steps in reaching the settlement.

Judgment was granted in favour of VIG for the settlement amount and loss adjustment costs, with the court denying VIG's claim for punitive damages.

This decision concerns the quantum of costs following a successful motion by the applicant to compel the sale of a home.

The applicant sought approximately $27,000 in costs.

The court found this amount disproportionate given the relative simplicity of the motion and the value of the property in a non-urban area.

While acknowledging the applicant's full success and the respondent's lack of meaningful participation, which warranted a higher sanction, the court reduced the award to $10,000, emphasizing the principle of proportionality in costs awards.

This endorsement concerns the approval of a class action settlement and class counsel fees in two consolidated proceedings (Johnson et al. v. Ontario and Sabourin v. Ontario) alleging deplorable conditions at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

The court approved a settlement of $32,795,400 and class counsel fees of $9,388,207.92, finding the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, given the significant litigation risks, the protracted nature of the actions, and the desire for a certain outcome for the thousands of affected class members.

The contingency fee agreements and the requested fees were also deemed fair and reasonable.

The self-represented plaintiff sought leave to amend his statement of claim against his former lawyers for negligence, specifically to include allegations related to the dismissal of a prior action (the Arcadia Action) for delay and to specify damages.

The defendants opposed, arguing abuse of process and failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, finding that a tenable cause of action was possible, but required the removal of certain statements that constituted an abuse of process by re-litigating previously decided issues.

The court also ordered the defendants to pay costs to the plaintiff.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault, appealed his conviction and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The appeal court dismissed the application for fresh evidence, finding it irrelevant, not credible, or not affecting the outcome.

The court also dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's credibility assessments, finding no palpable and overriding error, and rejecting arguments that the trial judge failed to consider the appellant's racialized background or relied on stereotypes.

In a class action seeking certification against the Crown and two psychiatrists (Defendant Doctors) regarding treatment in a psychiatric hospital program, the plaintiffs moved for a partial discontinuance of the action against the Defendant Doctors.

The court granted the discontinuance, finding it to be in the best interests of the putative Class Members.

The decision was based on the lack of additional recovery from the doctors, the streamlining of the claim, the doctors' later involvement in the program, and their agreement to provide de bene esse examinations to preserve evidence.

The court confirmed that the discontinuance was not for an improper purpose and did not prejudice the class members or the co-defendant Crown, as the doctors' evidence remained available.

This is a class action certification motion concerning allegedly defective N20 engines in BMW vehicles.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class of owners/lessees of BMW vehicles with these engines, alleging design and/or manufacturing defects causing sudden loss of power.

The court analyzed the five certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

While a cause of action in negligence was found, it was significantly narrowed to exclude claims for pure economic loss, limiting recovery to repair costs for actual damage or to avert imminent damage.

The proposed class definition was also narrowed to include only those who incurred such repair expenses by the judgment date.

One of the two proposed representative plaintiffs was deemed unsuitable as she had no recoverable loss.

The motion for certification was granted, but with substantial limitations on the scope of the class and the recoverable damages, and with only one representative plaintiff.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's administrative law claims, which challenged the LSO's licensing examination structure and procedural fairness.

The court dismissed the LSO's motion, finding that the claims disclosed a reasonable cause of action and were better suited for summary judgment or trial.

The court also addressed the plaintiff's attempt to re-add previously struck non-LSO defendants, confirming that these defendants were no longer parties to the action as all claims against them had been struck without leave to amend and they were not necessary parties.

This motion for summary judgment concerned an oppression claim brought by a condominium unit owner against the Condominium Corporation, its property manager, and superintendent.

The owner alleged oppressive conduct stemming primarily from the Corporation's decision to charge him for remediation costs after he left eggs cooking unattended, leading to smoke damage, and subsequently registering a lien on his unit for unpaid common expenses, which ultimately resulted in the power of sale of his home.

The owner also raised ancillary claims regarding cleaning product contracts, parking, and water leaks.

The court found that the Corporation acted reasonably and within its statutory powers in remediating the damage and registering the lien.

It was determined that the owner's own negligence and unreasonable refusal to mitigate his losses were the cause of his home's sale.

The court dismissed all of the owner's claims, granting summary judgment in favour of the Corporation.

The court heard a family law trial involving divorced spouses, Maria and Antonio Moretti, addressing claims for spousal support, child support, equalization of net family property, constructive trust over the matrimonial home, occupation rent, and breach of trust.

The court dismissed Maria's claims for retroactive and ongoing spousal support and equalization, finding her to have recklessly dissipated assets through gambling and undeclared income, which made an equal division unconscionable.

Antonio's claims for occupation rent and breach of trust were also dismissed.

The only remaining issue was ongoing child support for their adult son with autism, for which further evidence was required.

This action arose from a townhouse development project where Sundance Development Corporation (construction manager) and Islington Chauncey Residences Corp. (developer) disputed their services agreement.

Sundance claimed unpaid fees and for materials, asserting Islington repudiated the contract.

Islington counterclaimed for excess construction management costs and damages due to Sundance's alleged negligent management.

The court found that Islington did not repudiate the contract and that Sundance breached the agreement by unilaterally withdrawing services and demanding payments not yet due.

Sundance's claims and lien were dismissed.

Islington's counterclaim was partially granted for replacement construction management costs, steel column rectification, and sprinkler head changes due to Sundance's negligence, resulting in a net judgment in Islington's favour.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order for the defendant to produce a further and better affidavit of documents, specifically non-privileged documents related to a corporate reorganization or restructuring, regardless of their temporal origin.

The defendant argued the motion was premature, suggesting the issues could be addressed during examinations for discovery.

The court found that the documents were relevant based on the pleadings and that the defendant had previously agreed to their production.

The motion was granted, and the defendant was ordered to serve a sworn, comprehensive affidavit of documents.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.