Superior Court of Justice

The applicants, owners of 156 First Avenue in Ottawa, sought a declaration of prescriptive easement over a laneway (the “Disputed Lands”) running between their property and the respondents’ property at 152 First Avenue.

The applicants claimed the right to use the laneway to access the rear of their property and for parking, and sought an order for the removal of a fence erected by the respondents.

The court reviewed extensive affidavit evidence from the parties, former tenants, and neighbours regarding the historical use of the laneway.

The court found that while there was some evidence of past use for parking, the applicants failed to establish 20 years of open, uninterrupted, and acquiesced use necessary for a prescriptive easement, nor that such use was reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the property.

The application was dismissed.

This decision concerns an oppression remedy application and counterapplication under section 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The dispute is between two siblings, Asanka and Shamali, regarding the beneficial ownership and management of a small convenience store business operated through 1000635690 Ontario Inc. The court finds that both parties have reasonable expectations and have, in different ways, been oppressed by the other’s conduct.

The court orders a collaborative business arrangement until the expiry of the lease, after which Asanka will acquire full ownership, and profits will be distributed according to a specified formula.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The defendant, Fletcher’s Fields Limited, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, Robert Llewellyn Jenkins (as trustee for the Estate of Samuel Harrison Ball) and the Estate of Samuel Harrison Ball.

The court found that the plaintiffs did not have sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a costs award and had not demonstrated impecuniosity or a good chance of success on the merits.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post $20,000 as security for costs and awarded $10,000 in costs to the defendant, with both amounts payable within 60 days.

This costs endorsement follows an unsuccessful anti-SLAPP motion brought by the defendant, a former employee, who had made damaging and unsubstantiated allegations against the plaintiff, his former employer.

The court found the defendant's campaign of correspondence to be extortionate and awarded the plaintiff $50,000 in costs, exercising discretion under the Courts of Justice Act.

The court considered a motion regarding the sale of a jointly owned home and interim spousal support following the breakdown of a 26-year common-law relationship between two retired medical doctors.

The applicant sought the sale of the home and spousal support; the respondent sought a resulting trust and a vesting order.

The court found the property was intended to be held jointly, dismissed the resulting trust claim, ordered the property to be listed for sale, and awarded interim spousal support to the applicant.

The court dismissed GIPOA’s claim for proprietary estoppel against the City of Orillia regarding the use of docks on a city-owned water lot.

The court found that the City had not made an unambiguous promise or assurance to GIPOA, that GIPOA’s reliance was not reasonable, and that the public interest and municipal legislative authority outweighed any equitable claim.

The City’s enforcement of its policies and by-laws was found to be reasonable, and the City was entitled to change its policies and by-laws as circumstances required.

This endorsement addresses the awarding of full indemnity costs to the Defendants following the dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that several indicia of anti-SLAPP litigation were present, including a history of litigation against critics, a punitive purpose, and minimal damages.

The Plaintiffs did not provide costs submissions or arguments against the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs.

The court found the quantum of costs sought to be reasonable and noted that the Plaintiffs’ conduct increased litigation costs.

The Defendants were awarded $64,359.30 in costs, payable within 30 days.

The court considered an application to exclude drug evidence on the basis of alleged breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The applicant, Zachary Telford, was arrested for impaired operation after being found asleep in his vehicle, and subsequently charged with possession of fentanyl and other drugs.

The court found that there were reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and that the subsequent searches and demands were lawful.

The only Charter breach identified was a 20-minute delay in facilitating access to duty counsel, which was found to be minor and not to justify exclusion of the evidence.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The plaintiffs alleged that Maria Surovova and her company, Maria Mortgage Services Inc., engaged in a mortgage churning scheme, inducing the plaintiffs to take out a series of mortgages and transfer the proceeds to Surovova under the pretense that the funds would be applied to their mortgages.

Instead, Surovova misappropriated the funds for personal use.

The court found Surovova liable for civil fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, awarding the plaintiffs $1,666,059.13 in damages and $215,603.52 in costs.

The case concerns whether an assessor appointed under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 must provide disclosure of materials collected and reviewed prior to a capacity assessment, and whether the assessor and the Consent and Capacity Board considered the correct factors relevant to the management of property.

The court held that there is no legal obligation for the assessor to provide such disclosure in advance, and that the Board did not err in its application of the legal test for capacity.

The appeal was dismissed.

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement and quantum of costs following a family law trial between Christine Anonby and Erik Anonby.

The court finds the mother was the successful party on the primary parenting issue and partially successful on property issues.

The court awards the mother $85,000 in costs, finding her billings reasonable and the father’s litigation conduct not unreasonable except for the division of chattel.

The decision reviews the legal framework for costs in family law, the conduct of the parties, and the proportionality and reasonableness of the costs sought.

The court dismissed Steven Howell’s defamation action against Tracy Cullen, Manager of Licensing at the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO), as frivolous and vexatious.

The court found that Ms. Cullen was protected by statutory immunity for actions taken in good faith within the scope of her employment, and that Mr. Howell’s claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court also fixed costs against Mr. Howell in the amount of $15,000.

The court considered a motion by self-represented lead plaintiffs in a proposed class action challenging workers’ compensation regimes across Canada.

The plaintiffs sought an order requiring the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) to pay their legal costs, or alternatively, the appointment of amicus curiae or permission for the lead plaintiffs to represent the class.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action for failure to comply with Rule 15, which requires representative parties to be represented by counsel.

The court held that compliance with Rule 15.01(1) is mandatory and that the plaintiffs could not represent the class.

The court declined to appoint amicus curiae or grant an interim advance cost award, finding no exceptional circumstances or evidence of financial need.

The action was stayed pending the plaintiffs’ retention of counsel.

The decision concerns a motion by the Defendants to amend their Statement of Defence in an estate dispute regarding whether a $160,000 transfer from the deceased to his cousin was a loan or a gift.

The court finds that the proposed amendments do not constitute a withdrawal of admissions, and grants leave to amend under Rule 26.01, as no non-compensable prejudice to the Plaintiff is established.

The ruling clarifies the distinction between factual and legal admissions in pleadings and the applicable test for amendments.

The plaintiff, Esther Gerstel Inc. (EGI), brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, Denise Michelle Scott, for payment of amounts due under a mortgage and for possession of the mortgaged property.

The only issue was the amount owing, as the defendant acknowledged some amount was due.

The court found this was an appropriate case for summary judgment, holding that the principal and interest claimed by EGI were established, but that two renewal fees were not.

The court ordered payment of the principal and interest, but not the disputed renewal fees, and granted EGI possession of the property, with a 45-day period for the defendant to pay before enforcement.

This endorsement addresses an uncontested motion to change a spousal support order.

The respondent, Otto Budziak, sought to terminate his spousal support obligations and recalculate or eliminate arrears.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to a significant reduction in Mr. Budziak’s income and terminated his ongoing support obligation effective March 1, 2025.

However, the court declined to address arrears or withdraw the order from the Family Responsibility Office without further evidence and proper procedure.

The matter of arrears was adjourned, and the applicant, Audrey Duval, was to be served with this endorsement and any new materials.

The decision addresses a motion by David Peter McMath and Darcy Loyie to stay their motion for leave to appeal a summary judgment decision dismissing their individual claims for additional damages arising from administrative segregation, pending the outcome of other test cases.

The court applies the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay and finds that while there is a serious question to be tried, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favours a stay.

The motion is dismissed.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) sought a court order validating its by-laws and articles, which had been amended over a decade without compliance with the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act (CNCA) due to erroneous legal advice.

The court found that the CFPC had failed to hold required separate class votes for membership changes, rendering its constating documents improperly enacted.

The Resident Doctors of Canada, while generally supporting the application, sought restoration of voting rights for family medicine residents.

The court held that section 288(4) of the CNCA provided broad remedial powers to validate the documents and to reclassify family medicine residents as voting members.

The application was granted, validating the CFPC’s by-laws and articles nunc pro tunc and restoring voting rights to family medicine residents.