Superior Court of Justice

The plaintiff sought access to documents seized pursuant to an Anton Piller Order executed six months prior.

The defendants opposed, arguing the Order did not explicitly permit access and that review was premature.

The court found that the terms of the Order contemplated access by the Independent Supervising Solicitor (ISS) to identify and inspect records.

Given the passage of time and the discovery stage of the proceeding, the court directed the ISS to inspect the seized material and produce relevant records to the parties, noting the ISS provides protection against disclosure of irrelevant or privileged material.

The defendant subcontractor moved for summary judgment to dismiss a subrogated claim brought by the plaintiffs' insurer for damages to a cooling unit during construction.

The plaintiffs had cancelled the Builder's Risk Policy prior to the loss, arguing the premises were being used or occupied.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the evidence established that occupancy was legally impermissible without a permit, which had not been issued at the time of cancellation.

The plaintiffs breached their covenant to insure the defendant, barring the subrogated action.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the claim dismissed.

The Crown applied for an order establishing a protocol to search electronic devices seized from the accused after investigators discovered solicitor-client privileged communications.

The parties presented a consent order proposing that the police Digital Forensic Service use a software filter to isolate lawyer identifiers provided by the accused, followed by a review by the accused, rather than appointing an independent referee.

The court reviewed the jurisprudence on protecting solicitor-client privilege during electronic searches and approved the consent order, finding that the proposed protocol minimally impaired the risk of breaching privilege and that appointing a referee was unnecessary given the accused's ability to identify the privileged communications.

The Receiver brought a motion seeking approval of its activities, fees, and a further distribution of funds, as well as authorization to assign the debtor into bankruptcy and act as Trustee.

The Receiver also sought an order declaring the principal of the debtor a vexatious litigant.

The principal opposed the motion, raising arguments generated by artificial intelligence, including allegations of structural conflict of interest and prematurity.

The court dismissed the principal's objections, finding them to be abusive relitigation of previously decided issues.

The court approved the Receiver's requests, authorized the bankruptcy assignment, and declared the principal a vexatious litigant.

The Divisional Court remitted a matter back to the Superior Court to determine whether disclosing the identities of third-party funders paying the living expenses of the Aljabri defendants posed a risk to their personal safety.

The defendants adduced unchallenged evidence that the Saudi regime had previously targeted the family and associates of the lead defendant following a 2017 palace coup.

The court found a material risk that disclosure to the plaintiffs could lead to the information reaching the Saudi government, jeopardizing the funders' safety.

The court ordered that the identities remain disclosed on a counsels' eyes only basis and not be provided to the plaintiffs.

Following a Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution hearing regarding child and spousal support, the applicant sought costs of $26,567.02.

The respondent argued each party should bear their own costs due to a mixed outcome.

The court found the applicant was substantially successful and that her offer to settle was more favourable than the final order.

The court awarded the applicant her full requested costs, payable within 90 days, and ordered that the costs be enforceable as a support order through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant, a resident of China who sustained a severe traumatic brain injury in a motorcoach collision in Ontario, sought court approval for the settlement of her Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) claim.

The court dispensed with the requirement for the litigation guardian to file an affidavit, finding it cost-effective and proportionate.

The court approved the SABS settlement of $626,074.11 as reasonable and in the applicant's best interests.

The court also approved the solicitor-client account, the distribution of funds to healthcare providers, and the proposed management of the net settlement funds by the applicant's husband in China.

The applicant sought an order dispensing with the respondent's consent to renew a joint mortgage on their jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent had fled Canada to avoid criminal charges and was unresponsive.

The court granted the order under section 23(b) of the Family Law Act, finding that dispensing with consent would preserve the joint asset by allowing the mortgage to be renewed at a more advantageous interest rate without increasing the principal amount or prejudicing the respondent.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a full recovery basis.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages alleging that the defendants' replacement of a culvert under a local road caused flooding and erosion on their property.

The defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the claim, arguing it was barred by the statutory immunity provision in s. 18 of the Local Roads Board Act.

The court found that the replacement of a culvert constitutes maintenance of a local road, and therefore the plaintiffs' claim was barred by statutory immunity.

The motion to strike was granted without leave to amend.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a 12-year-old neighbour in their apartment building hallway.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's testimony as not credible due to implausible memory gaps.

The court accepted the complainant's clear and reliable evidence, which was corroborated by surveillance video.

The accused was found guilty on both counts, with the sexual assault conviction stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The plaintiffs moved for default judgment against their former lawyer and his professional corporation after he misappropriated $313,333 in trust funds intended for a real estate transaction.

The lawyer admitted to withdrawing the funds for his own purposes and was subsequently charged criminally.

After recovering a portion of the funds from LawPRO, the plaintiffs sought the remaining balance, general damages, punitive damages, and costs.

The court granted liquidated damages for the unrecovered balance and awarded $30,000 in punitive damages due to the egregious nature of the lawyer's breach of trust, but dismissed the claim for general damages due to a lack of evidence.

Substantial indemnity costs were also awarded.

The court, on its own initiative, commenced a vexatious litigant proceeding against the respondent under Rule 2.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondent had a lengthy history of initiating multiple proceedings, bringing repetitive motions, failing to pay costs awards, and making unfounded allegations of bias against numerous judges.

The court found that the respondent's conduct demonstrated a pattern of vexatious and abusive litigation behaviour.

The respondent was declared a vexatious litigant and prohibited from instituting or continuing any proceeding in Ontario without first obtaining leave of the court.

The applicant mother sought retroactive and prospective child support for two adult children suffering from sickle cell anaemia.

The respondent father contested jurisdiction, arguing the proper forum was Ireland, Nigeria, or Israel, and denied paternity despite DNA tests confirming his parentage to a 99.99999% probability.

The court found it had jurisdiction, confirmed the respondent's paternity, and awarded retroactive child support to August 1, 2016, citing the father's blameworthy conduct in evading his obligations.

The court also ordered prospective support with set termination dates and granted a final preservation order securing the support against the father's property.

The defendants brought a motion under section 5(6) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 to stay a proposed global securities class action in Ontario in favour of a similar proposed class action in British Columbia.

The Ontario action alleged statutory secondary market misrepresentation and common law negligent misrepresentation regarding the defendants' artificial intelligence products.

The court considered the objectives and factors under section 5(7) of the Act, noting that the Ontario action was more advanced, had a more streamlined pleading, and that the corporate defendant was a well-resourced telecommunications company capable of litigating in multiple jurisdictions.

The court concluded that the objectives of judicial economy and ensuring justice for all parties favoured allowing the Ontario action to proceed.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

Definity Insurance Company brought a motion to be added as a statutory third party under s. 258(14) of the Insurance Act after denying coverage to the defendant driver.

The court granted the request to add Definity as a statutory third party.

However, the court declined to order that the coverage issue be tried separately after the main negligence trial, finding such an order premature while pleadings remained open.

The court also declined to make an advance ruling precluding the jury from hearing about Definity's third-party status, leaving that determination to the trial judge.

The defendant insurer brought a motion under s. 128 of the Insurance Act to compel the plaintiff insureds to participate in the statutory appraisal process following a fire loss.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing the matter should proceed to summary judgment due to a fundamental disagreement over the valuation date and allegations of bad faith.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the appraisal process is limited to valuation and cannot resolve broader legal disputes such as policy interpretation regarding the correct valuation date.

The plaintiffs were ordered to submit a sworn proof of loss.

The offender pleaded guilty to importing 2.67 kg of cocaine.

Prior to sentencing, she developed an aggressive form of optic neuritis, leaving her nearly blind and requiring immediate, specialized hospital treatment during unpredictable relapses to prevent total vision loss.

The court found that provincial and federal correctional facilities could not guarantee the timely emergency medical intervention she required, creating a real risk of complete blindness if incarcerated.

Finding that a penitentiary sentence would be disproportionately harsh due to this medical hardship, the court departed from the usual 6-to-8-year range and imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day.

The plaintiff failed to attend the first day of a scheduled 10-day jury trial for a motor vehicle accident claim.

The plaintiff, who had previously been found to be a vexatious litigant, had also failed to attend recent pre-trial conferences and failed to produce required medical and financial evidence.

The court dismissed the action due to the plaintiff's non-attendance and lack of evidence, and awarded the defendant substantial indemnity costs of $100,000.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage against the defendant's property.

The court dismissed the motion because the plaintiffs' evidentiary record was deficient, missing vital information about the mortgage renewal, payment history, and notice of sale.

The defendant's cross-motion was also dismissed as it was brought without leave.

No costs were awarded because both parties submitted deficient materials, and the defendant cited a non-existent case.

The applicant sought a declaration that her late father was incapable of granting a 2012 power of attorney for property to her brother, and an order requiring her brother to pass accounts.

The court found that while there were questions about the father's capacity, the applicant failed to rebut the presumption of capacity with clear evidence.

However, the court ordered the brother to pass his accounts from 2012 to 2025, finding cogent evidence of potential mismanagement and significant personal withdrawals from the father's bank account.