SCJ 2025

An anti-SLAPP motion brought by directors of MediPharm Labs Corp. to dismiss a libel action arising from a lawyer's letter sent during a proxy contest.

The letter, authored by counsel and approved by the defendants, raised concerns about the plaintiffs' solicitation activities, potential securities law violations, and market manipulation.

The court found the expression related to matters of public interest, the plaintiffs failed to establish substantial merit to their claim, and the defendants had valid defences including qualified privilege, fair comment, responsible communication, and truth.

The motion was granted and the claim dismissed.

Lien claimants sought orders protecting their construction lien claims from dismissal under sections 37 and 46 of the Construction Act due to claims not being set down for trial within two years of commencement.

The claims had been stayed by receivership orders.

The court granted the orders sought, finding that the processes employed were not undermining the policy of the Construction Act and that the circumstances warranted protection of the lien claims while the receivership proceeded.

The court emphasized the importance of balancing insolvency principles with the statutory intent of the Construction Act to deal with liens expeditiously.

The applicant brought a motion to remove the respondent corporation's solicitor of record on the grounds that the lawyer was taking instructions exclusively from two individuals with significant conflicts of interest relative to the corporation.

The applicant sought the appointment of an inspector to investigate the corporation's financial affairs, suspecting misappropriation of funds by a director and treasurer.

The court found that the two individuals instructing the lawyer had glaring conflicts of interest, creating a substantial risk of impaired representation and compromising the integrity of the administration of justice.

The court ordered the removal of the solicitor and required the corporation to retain new counsel with unconficted instructing parties.

A condominium developer brought an application under section 134(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998, seeking a declaration that unit owners had breached sections 117(2) and 119(4) of the Act by causing excessive noise that interfered with other owners' enjoyment of their property.

The applicant sought a cease and desist order and costs.

The respondents owned a residential unit where occupants were playing loud music at all hours.

Despite numerous verbal warnings, written notices, and Rules Infraction Notices issued over several months, the noise continued unabated.

The court found the respondents in breach and granted the requested orders, awarding costs of $7,500 on a scale between partial and full indemnity.

The defendant Dr. Akhravi brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay under Rule 24.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action was commenced on December 22, 2017, almost eight years prior to the motion.

The plaintiffs, who were self-represented, had failed to properly serve Dr. Akhravi with an issued pleading and had taken no steps to advance the action.

The court found that the delay was inordinate, inexcusable, and prejudicial to the defendant, and granted the motion to dismiss.

The court also awarded costs of $5,000 all inclusive to Dr. Akhravi.

The applicant sought a divorce, parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and ongoing and retroactive child support for their seven-year-old child.

The parties were married in 2016 and separated in 2017.

The applicant has been the primary caregiver since the child's birth in Ontario, while the respondent initially remained in Quebec and later relocated to Texas.

The court granted the applicant's application, awarding sole decision-making responsibility to the applicant, parenting time to the respondent consisting of weekly virtual calls and monthly in-person visits within Ontario, and retroactive and ongoing child support based on imputed income for periods of intentional underemployment and the respondent's current earnings.

The respondent sought an extension of the suspension of the declaration of invalidity of certain provisions of the Citizenship Act.

The declaration was originally suspended for six months from December 19, 2023, and has been extended multiple times.

The respondent sought an extension to January 20, 2026 (reduced from April 22, 2026 by consent).

The court granted a two-month extension to January 20, 2026, noting significant progress in enacting replacement legislation with a reasonable expectation that it may come into force by the end of 2025.

The court adjourned the balance of the motion to January 13, 2026.

The applicants sought directions on whether Shannon Durno, the named estate trustee, should be removed or passed over, and whether Aleksandr Bolotenko should be appointed as the succeeding estate trustee.

The estate trustee was unwilling to continue acting.

One respondent opposed the appointment of Bolotenko on the basis of alleged conflict of interest.

The court found that Durno had intermeddled with the estate and could not renounce her position, and therefore removed her.

The court found no disqualifying conflict of interest and appointed Bolotenko as the succeeding estate trustee.

The respondent husband brought a motion for partition and sale of the matrimonial home to obtain funds for legal expenses and to continue making support payments.

The applicant wife opposed the motion, arguing that she had established a prima facie case for a vesting order to satisfy her claims for equalization and spousal support, and that the sale would prejudice her rights.

The court found that the wife had established a prima facie case for substantial equalization and retroactive spousal support payments exceeding the husband's equity in the home, and that the wife would suffer prejudice if the home were sold before trial.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory Mareva injunction against the defendants to freeze their assets pending trial.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants fraudulently induced him to invest approximately $350,000 in what was represented as a legitimate investment scheme.

The court granted the interlocutory Mareva injunction against one defendant based on a strong prima facie case of civil fraud, evidence of asset dissipation, and irreparable harm.

The motion was dismissed as against the other defendants due to insufficient evidence of a strong prima facie case against them.

In this contract interpretation dispute, the plaintiff developer (Losani) sought payment from the defendant developer (Tobyn Park Homes) for the defendant's share of infrastructure costs under a Construction and Cost Sharing Agreement.

The central issue was whether interim payments were due upon issuance of Progress Certificates by the consulting engineer, or whether payment could be deferred until the City of Hamilton formally accepted the works as complete.

The court found that the CSA clearly required interim payments within 20 days of each Progress Certificate, and that the External Works Agreement (annexed to the CSA) addressed only the standard for final completion, not the timing of interim payments.

All of Tobyn's payments were late, and interest at 15% per annum, compounded monthly, accrued on all amounts owing.

The defendant was charged with seven counts arising from the execution of Cannabis Act search warrants at two residential properties on November 3, 2021.

The charges included unlawful possession of cannabis for purposes of distribution and sale at both properties, and unlicensed possession of firearms and a prohibited device at the rural property.

The defendant was found present at the rural property when police executed the warrant.

The Crown relied primarily on circumstantial evidence and DNA evidence to establish possession.

The court found that while the Crown established the presence of substantial quantities of cannabis and firearms at both locations, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed these items.

The court acquitted on all counts, finding reasonable doubts regarding the defendant's knowledge and control over the items, the handling of evidence by police, and the possibility of indirect DNA transfer.

The plaintiffs and Pensio defendants brought undertakings and refusals motions involving over 140 questions arising from examinations for discovery.

The motions concerned a dispute over a $1,000,000 rental income program fee paid by the plaintiffs to a lawyer's trust account.

The plaintiffs alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The defendants asserted solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege over various communications and documents.

The court addressed numerous discovery disputes, balancing the principles of relevance, proportionality, and privilege, and made determinations on approximately 140 disputed questions across multiple examinations.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to add allegations of fraudulent conveyances and unjust preferences concerning a condominium unit in Toronto.

The plaintiff sought to establish that certain instruments and an underlying alter ego trust created between May and August 2024 were fraudulent conveyances designed to defeat creditors.

The plaintiff was enforcing three Greek judgments totaling approximately 700,000 euros against the defendants.

The court applied the three-part test for certificates of pending litigation and found that the plaintiff established a high probability of success on the underlying action, sufficient evidence of badges of fraud to create a triable issue, and that the balance of convenience favoured issuance of the certificate.

The court granted leave to amend and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought costs following a successful motion for leave to examine a non-party pursuant to Rule 31.10.

The plaintiff claimed partial indemnity costs of $19,926.08, arguing the motion was necessary due to the non-party's refusal to cooperate.

The non-party opposed the costs award, contending that as a non-party he had no obligation to consent and that the relief sought was overly broad.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff as the successful party, finding the motion was necessary and the non-party's lack of cooperation justified the motion.

Costs were fixed at $17,500 on a partial indemnity basis, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

Vestacon Limited commenced an action against the defendants for unpaid invoices totalling $449,819.31 for labour and materials for the renovation of three units of a commercial condominium project.

The defendants were noted in default and deemed to admit all allegations in the statement of claim.

At trial, the court found that the defendant company breached its contract by failing to pay the invoices when rendered and awarded judgment in that amount plus prejudgment interest.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act against the individual defendants, finding insufficient evidence that the defendant company received funds specifically designated for financing the improvement.

The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff.

This is a costs endorsement following an uncontested family law trial conducted in two phases.

The applicant sought costs recovery for legal fees and disbursements incurred over approximately 24 months, from the preparation of the application through to the final determination of property issues and implementation of orders.

The court determined the scope of recoverable costs and applied principles from established case law regarding costs awards in uncontested trials, considering reasonableness, proportionality, and the conduct of the parties.

The plaintiffs moved without notice for a Norwich Order and Mareva Injunction against Benjamin Allan Ward, the former CEO of Wayland Group Corp., in connection with a proposed investors' class action under the Ontario Securities Act.

Ward had been noted in default and evaded service.

The court found evidence of Ward's history of securities fraud, improper conduct, evasion of service, and removal of assets to multiple jurisdictions.

The court granted the Mareva Injunction to prevent asset dissipation pending a default judgment motion scheduled for March 10, 2026, where damages exceeding $49 million are sought on behalf of the proposed class.

This costs endorsement follows an 8-day trial in a family law matter concerning parenting, decision-making, child support arrears, and equalization.

The applicant was substantially successful on the most important issues, including parenting capacity and the date of separation, but was unsuccessful on imputed income and equalization claims.

The respondent's unreasonable conduct, unstable personal circumstances, and unrealistic positions significantly complicated the proceedings.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant but reduced the claimed amount due to excessive hourly rates charged by Toronto counsel and applied to an Ottawa matter.

Damages claims for family violence were rejected as inappropriate and unsettled in law.

This is a costs decision following the court's grant of leave to commence a derivative action under s. 246 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The applicant sought to bring proceedings on behalf of two corporations against their directors for breach of fiduciary duties and duties of care relating to excessive compensation.

The applicant sought costs against the respondent directors on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondents argued for no costs or significantly reduced costs, citing divided success and adverse findings regarding the applicant's own conduct.

The court reserved costs to the trial judge, finding that the trial judge would be best positioned to assess costs of the entirety of the proceedings and the parties' conduct.