Superior Court of Justice

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) applied for the appointment of a receiver over the respondents under section 129 of the Securities Act.

The parties sought directions from the court regarding non-disclosure obligations under sections 16 and 17 of the Act, particularly concerning the production and use of investigation materials.

The court endorsed a protocol allowing redacted and unredacted affidavits to be filed, balancing the need for confidentiality with the respondents’ right to make full answer and defence.

The court also addressed scheduling and adjournment of the application, confirming the interim monitorship and setting a new hearing date.

This decision addresses whether software developed by an employee (Vladimir Krougly) while employed at Nexus Solutions Inc. was created in the course of employment, such that Nexus would own the copyright in the software (Limedas) later commercialized by Limesoft Inc. The court finds that although Krougly was the author of the software, it was not created in the course of his employment with Nexus, and thus Nexus is not entitled to a proprietary remedy under copyright law.

The court reviews the factual background, credibility of witnesses, expert evidence, and the legal framework for copyright ownership in the employment context.

The plaintiff sought damages for losses arising from the defendant’s failure to complete a real estate purchase.

The court found the plaintiff acted reasonably in re-listing and selling the property after the defendant’s breach, rejected the defence of failure to mitigate, and awarded damages and costs to the plaintiff.

The court also addressed the admissibility of evidence from the plaintiff’s real estate agent as a participant expert.

The court considered an application under the Partition Act for the sale of a jointly owned property in Odessa, Ontario.

The applicant, Caralee Madelyn Paul, sought partition and sale of the property she co-owned with the respondent, Jeffrey Dean Baker.

The court reviewed the parties’ financial contributions, the trust agreement, and the circumstances of the property’s acquisition.

The court found that both parties were 50% beneficial owners and that the applicant was entitled to partition and sale, subject to accounting for contributions and adjustments.

The court rejected arguments based on resulting trust, unjust enrichment, and oppression, and set out a process for adjustments, potential buyout, and sale.

This costs endorsement addresses the aftermath of a motion to strike the defendants’ statement of defence for failure to attend examinations for discovery.

The court had previously dismissed the motion to strike but awarded the plaintiffs partial costs thrown away.

The parties could not agree on costs, and both made written submissions.

The court ultimately found that, given the divided result and the defendants’ prior waiver of costs, each party should bear its own costs of the motion.

The decision concerns the validity and testamentary effect of a 2019 Option Agreement, 2019 Wills, and two handwritten documents in the estate of Joyce Eileen Laur.

The applicant, Robert Jackson Laur, sought a declaration that the Option Agreement was valid and enforceable, and that at least one handwritten document constituted a holograph will.

The respondents argued incapacity and undue influence regarding the Option Agreement and challenged the testamentary intent of the handwritten documents.

The court found that the Option Agreement was valid and enforceable, as it reflected a longstanding intention and was not a new or complex decision for Grant Laur, despite his cognitive impairment.

The court also found that the handwritten documents did not reflect Joyce Laur’s fixed and final testamentary intention and thus had no testamentary import.

Gray Jay Estates Inc. sought a court order to vary the “Payment Amount” under an assignment of indebtedness and security agreement, which would have increased the amount payable by NE SPC II LP (Blacksail) by approximately $1 million.

The dispute centered on whether cash on hand should have been used to repay a DIP facility before closing, and whether a term should be implied into the agreement to require such repayment.

The court found no basis to imply such a term, holding that the contract’s language was clear and that the parties had not agreed to the adjustment sought.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to Blacksail.

The court sentenced Jordan James O’Brien-Tobin to life imprisonment with 18 years of parole ineligibility for the second degree murder of Gabriel Magalhaes, a 16-year-old stranger, at a Toronto subway station.

The decision details the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the random and brutal nature of the offence, the devastating impact on the victim’s family and community, the offender’s extensive criminal record, and his personal and mental health background.

The court found that the protection of society, denunciation, and deterrence required a period of parole ineligibility above the statutory minimum.

This decision concerns a motion for pre-approval of a settlement in a national class action alleging price fixing in the packaged bread market in Canada.

The Ontario plaintiffs reached a $500 million settlement in principle with several defendants, including Loblaw Companies Limited and George Weston Limited, subject to court approval in both Ontario and Quebec.

The court approved the notice plan, opt-out and objection procedures, and the appointment of a settlement administrator, and set a hearing date for final approval.

The order amends the class definition and certification for settlement purposes only, and provides for the administration and notice of the settlement to class members.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for damages arising from a dog bite, holding that the plaintiff, a dog walker, was an “owner” under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA) at the time of the incident.

The court found that the plaintiff was in physical possession and control of the dog immediately before the bite, and thus was jointly and severally liable under the DOLA, precluding her from recovering damages from the other owners.

The decision applies the Ontario Court of Appeal’s interpretation of “owner” in Wilk v. Arbour and clarifies that dominion or independent control is not required for liability under the DOLA.

The court acquitted A.B. of all charges of sexual assault and sexual touching against Y.Z., finding that the complainant's evidence was not sufficiently reliable or credible to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

The decision turned on significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, implausibility in the mechanics of the alleged assaults, and contradictions with other evidence, including the timing and circumstances of the alleged events.

The court also found the accused's evidence to be generally credible and reliable.

The court sentenced Dwaine Trapper Graham to nine years’ imprisonment for manslaughter, following a joint submission by Crown and defence.

Graham fatally stabbed Noran Leslie-Durrant with a broken golf club during an altercation.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offence, Graham’s background, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicable sentencing principles.

The sentence was reduced by credit for pre-trial custody and ordered to run concurrently with another sentence.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding it within the appropriate range for such offences.

The City of Toronto sought partial summary judgment to dismiss the action against it, relying on section 42(4)(b) of the City of Toronto Act, which bars actions for damages caused by the condition of an "untravelled portion of a highway." The court found that the area where the plaintiff was injured was not intended for ordinary or normal use, nor commonly or additionally used by the public, and therefore fell within the statutory bar.

The action against the City of Toronto was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the City.

The court considered whether it could impose sentence under section 669.2 of the Criminal Code after the trial judge retired, where the trial judge’s reasons for conviction and acquittal on two counts of sexual assault were ambiguous and appeared to conflate evidence between counts.

The Crown argued for sentencing to proceed, while Amicus argued a mistrial was necessary due to the confusion in the trial judge’s reasons.

The court found the errors and conflation in the trial judge’s reasons too significant to proceed to sentencing and declared a mistrial, remitting the matter for a new trial.

This decision concerns motions brought by Pride Group Holdings Inc. and related applicants under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for interim relief in their restructuring proceedings.

The court addresses requests for approval of interim distributions, payment of direct costs, application of deferred payments for working capital, and approval of certain activities of the Monitor.

The court grants the requested relief, finding it necessary to maintain liquidity and continue the wind-down process, and holds that the proposed mechanisms are equitable and consistent with the CCAA’s remedial objectives.

The applicant sought urgent relief in the form of a Norwich order and a Mareva injunction to recover funds allegedly lost to fraud.

The court declined to grant these extraordinary remedies, finding that the identity and location of the respondent were already known and that the circumstances did not justify such sweeping orders.

The decision emphasizes the proportionality and appropriateness of remedies, suggesting that a straightforward damages action in Small Claims Court is the proper course.

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement and quantum of costs following a successful motion by the defendant.

The court considers the timing of the defendant’s costs submissions, the scale of costs (partial vs. substantial indemnity), the effect of offers to settle, and the conduct of the parties.

The court ultimately awards the defendant $20,490 in costs, finding no basis for a higher scale and that the amount is reasonable and proportionate.