SCJ 2025

The plaintiff, Syed Bahauddin, was employed as a chef at the defendants’ restaurant for over 20 years before being dismissed without cause.

After settling a wrongful dismissal action, the defendants failed to pay the full judgment.

The plaintiff sought and was granted an order requiring the garnishee, 1436318 Ontario Ltd., to pay the outstanding amount.

The court found the mortgage between related parties to be valid and enforceable, rejected claims that it was a sham, and concluded that the equities favoured the plaintiff.

The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The court approved a settlement agreement in a class action concerning losses suffered by investors in a syndicated mortgage loan promoted by Fortress Real Developments Inc. and Fortress Real Capital Inc. The settlement, reached with FMP Mortgage Investments Inc. and related defendants, provides for a $3,000,000 payment to class members, representing a substantial portion of the available insurance.

The court also certified the action as a class proceeding for the purposes of the settlement, approved class counsel fees, and made ancillary orders to facilitate the administration of the settlement and protect the parties involved.

In a certified class proceeding arising from alleged COVID-19 business interruption coverage denials, the moving parties sought production of internal insurer documents relevant to common issues alleging breach of the duty of good faith and punitive damages.

The court held that the bad faith allegations had sufficient evidentiary foundation, particularly given the certification findings and evidence of an apparent blanket denial process, to move the request beyond a fishing expedition.

Internal materials concerning the insurer's corporate-level denial decision, adjuster communications, and reinsurer communications about a later pandemic exclusion were found relevant to contemporaneous decision-making and after-the-fact policy interpretation.

Production was ordered for categories (c), (d), and (e), but not for comparator materials concerning different insurance programs in category (f).

The trustee in bankruptcy, Goldhar & Associates Ltd., brought a motion to annul Qui Thieu Mac’s discharge from bankruptcy, arguing that the discharge was granted due to inadvertence in failing to file a notice of opposition.

The court found that there was a bona fide error, that opposition would have been filed but for the error, and that a discharge hearing would likely have led to a different result given the facts proven under section 173(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court exercised its discretion to set aside the absolute discharge and granted the trustee’s motion.

The court approved a Settlement and Mutual Release Agreement regarding the administration of syndicated mortgage loans and projects affiliated with Fortress Real Developments Inc. The Trustee, FAAN Mortgage Administrators Inc., sought approval to enter into the agreement, direct payment of the settlement, and authorize distribution to investors.

The court found the settlement appropriate, noting no better alternatives existed and that the agreement provided certainty and at least a nominal recovery for investors after significant delay.

The applicant, Harmur Investments Limited, sought a vesting order declaring that it had acquired, through adverse possession, title to two parcels of land in the Township of Greater Madawaska.

The court found that Harmur had not acquired title to the parcel known as "the Triangle" but had acquired title to the parcel known as "the Boathouse Parcel." The decision provides a detailed analysis of the requirements for adverse possession under Ontario law, including the necessity of actual possession, intention to exclude, and effective exclusion of the true owner.

This endorsement concerns a motion by FAAN Mortgage Administrators Inc., as Court-appointed Trustee of Building & Development Mortgages Canada Inc. (BDMC), for approval of its 30th and 31st Reports, its fees and disbursements, a sealing order for certain confidential exhibits, and authorization to distribute the Fortress Holdback and Future Fortress Amounts to investors.

The motion was unopposed.

The court approved the Trustee’s activities and fees, granted the sealing order, and authorized the distribution to investors, finding these steps appropriate and necessary to protect investor interests and confidential information.

This family law trial determined the valuation date for equalization where the spouses continued living under the same roof for years after their relationship deteriorated.

The court applied a holistic and objective analysis of the parties’ routines, vacations, sleeping arrangements, financial practices, family events, tax filings, and declarations to assess when they separated with no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation.

The respondent’s evidence supporting a 2014 separation date was rejected on credibility grounds, while the applicant’s evidence established only a temporary separation in 2016-2017 followed by reconciliation.

The court declared the separation date to be December 18, 2019 for purposes of s. 4 of the Family Law Act.

The court considered a motion by the Defendants to strike portions of the Plaintiffs’ amended claim or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim for an easement for drainage.

The court found that while the Plaintiffs’ pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the easement claim.

The Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to define the easement with adequate specificity or to show that an easement of necessity or by common intention existed at the time of severance.

The claim for an easement for drainage was summarily dismissed.

The plaintiff, a veterinarian employed by the defendant clinic for approximately 20 years, brought an action claiming wrongful or constructive dismissal.

The dispute arose after a client's partner made threats to clinic staff following the escape of a cat, leading the plaintiff to refuse to return to work unless the employer sent a formal client termination letter.

The employer refused to send the letter, believing it would inflame the situation, and instead implemented other security measures and requested the plaintiff return her keys.

The court held that the employer's safety measures were reasonable and the plaintiff's demand was unnecessary, meaning her refusal to return to work constituted a de facto resignation.

Accordingly, the action and all associated claims for moral and human rights damages were dismissed.

The decision addresses three motions in a civil action: the plaintiffs’ motion to extend and validate service of their statement of claim, the defendants’ motion for a status hearing, and the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The court validates service on the individual defendants, finds that limitation period arguments raise triable issues, and concludes that both parties contributed to the delay.

The court grants the plaintiffs’ motion for a status hearing, dismisses the defendants’ motion to dismiss for delay, and sets a timetable for the action to proceed to trial.

The court considered an application under the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act to set aside litigation loan agreements entered into by Chadwick Randy Kelly (by his litigation guardian and attorney for property) with BridgePoint Financial Services Limited Partnership I. The loans, used to purchase and retrofit a home after a catastrophic injury, had grown to over $1.1 million due to compounding interest.

The applicants argued the loans were excessive, harsh, and unconscionable.

The court found that, given the risk profile, the lack of alternative financing, and the terms of the agreements, the loans were not excessive or unconscionable under the Act.

The application was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.

This was a costs endorsement following the granting of a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation against real property and the abandonment of a cross-motion for security for costs.

The successful moving parties sought substantial indemnity costs and relied on pre-hearing and post-decision settlement offers, while the responding parties argued for a lower amount or costs in the cause.

The court held that the settlement offers did not trigger the formal consequences under r. 49.10, but remained relevant to the discretionary assessment under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and r. 57.01.

Applying those factors and r. 37.09(3) concerning abandoned motions, the court fixed costs slightly above partial indemnity and ordered payment forthwith within 30 days.

The court considered whether Ontario had jurisdiction to hear a family law application involving parties with significant international connections, including property in the Bahamas and Spain, and a prior divorce proceeding commenced in Spain.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction over all claims, including divorce, support, decision-making responsibility, and property/equalization, due to the real and substantial connection between the parties and Ontario, particularly as the applicant and one child were ordinarily resident in Ontario.

The respondent's motion to stay or dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction or on the basis of forum non conveniens was dismissed.

The applicant challenged the validity of his deceased mother's 2005 Will, arguing that her limited English skills prevented her from understanding and approving its contents and that the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances.

The respondent, the deceased's daughter and estate trustee, defended the Will's validity and sought occupation rent from the applicant for his rent-free residence in the deceased's home since her death.

The Court dismissed the application, finding that the deceased possessed sufficient English proficiency to understand and approve the Will and that there was no evidence of duress or undue influence.

Consequently, the Court declared the 2005 Will valid, ordered the applicant to pay $144,766.02 in occupation rent to the estate, and granted a writ of possession to enforce his eviction.

This decision addresses interim parenting arrangements and school registration for the child of Jason Kyle Sheedy and Karen Nadine Shackelton following their separation.

The court considered the best interests of the child, the parties' conflicting evidence, and the need for stability.

The court ordered that the child be enrolled at Caradoc Public School and set out a detailed interim parenting schedule, balancing time between both parents and emphasizing the importance of following court orders.

The applicants sought discharge of a $100,000 charge registered against residential property as security for a commercial lease guarantee after the lease had been assigned to a new tenant with replacement guarantors and replacement security.

The respondent landlord counter-applied for $145,205 in alleged repair and renovation costs said to arise from the outgoing tenant's obligations under a lease renewal agreement.

The court held that the proceeding could be determined by application because the dispositive issues turned on contractual interpretation and limitations, not contested material facts requiring a trial.

The court found the guarantors were released when the landlord approved the assignment and accepted replacement guarantors and security.

The landlord's repair claim was characterized as a contractual claim governed by the basic two-year limitation period under s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, not the ten-year period under the Real Property Limitations Act, and was therefore statute-barred.

The applicant father sought a "chasing order" for declaratory relief that the child, F.K., is habitually resident in Brampton, Ontario, and for the child's return from Poland under the Children’s Law Reform Act and the Hague Convention.

The court found that F.K. was wrongfully retained in Poland by the mother and ordered the child's immediate return to Ontario.

The decision reviews the legal principles of habitual residence, wrongful retention, and the best interests of the child, and addresses the credibility of the parties' evidence.

On a motion within a Substitute Decisions Act guardianship dispute between siblings, the court addressed interim directions concerning an elderly mother's capacity, legal representation, disclosure, and protective relief.

The court held that s. 3 counsel should be arranged and that a capacity assessment should be ordered under s. 79 because the evidentiary record, including geriatric psychiatric evidence, provided reasonable grounds to believe the person was incapable.

The court declined immediate production of medical and solicitor files, examinations of the lawyers, disclosure of the person's location, apprehension and relocation orders, and tracing or preservation relief, finding those measures premature and unduly invasive absent a capacity declaration.

The court instead ordered unfettered access for s. 3 counsel, limited production of records sought by the assessor, and facilitated telephone communication.

Summary conviction appeal from a conviction for refusing to comply with a roadside breath demand.

The appellant argued that the approved screening device demand did not satisfy the immediacy requirement, that the suspension of the right to counsel therefore ended, and that the trial reasons were insufficient regarding an alleged post-refusal implementation delay under s. 10(b).

The appeal judge held that the officer made the demand promptly, had the device ready, and that the delay arose from the appellant's repeated questions, pleas, and refusal to decide.

The court further held that any post-refusal delay was brief, quickly corrected, and in any event could not justify appellate intervention or exclusion of evidence on this record.

The appeal was dismissed.