Superior Court of Justice

The plaintiffs sought court approval of a $650,000 settlement in a class action arising from an apartment building fire that displaced hundreds of residents.

The fire was allegedly caused by a space heater, which the plaintiffs claimed was necessary due to the defendants' failure to provide adequate heating.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the litigation risks and the meaningful compensation it provides to vulnerable class members.

The court also approved class counsel's 25% contingency fee and disbursements totaling $189,432.72.

Following a trial where the applicant was awarded $3 million in lump-sum spousal support, the court determined the applicant's entitlement to prejudgment interest and costs.

The court awarded $129,698 in prejudgment interest, finding no reason to exercise its discretion to disallow it.

The court also awarded the applicant $670,000 in costs, noting she was entirely successful on the primary issue of spousal support and had made a qualifying offer to settle that entitled her to full recovery of costs from the date of the offer.

Following a decision granting leave to proceed with secondary market misrepresentation claims and certifying a class action, the parties disputed the settlement of the order, the certification of the primary market subclass's financial outlook claim, and costs.

The court held that the primary market subclass's claim remained certified, as importing a merits-based leave test into the certification criteria was improper.

The court settled the order in accordance with the plaintiff's draft, declined to clarify findings of fact, and awarded the plaintiff $950,000 in costs based on overall success.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following the parties' separation.

The respondent claimed inability to pay and disputed entitlement.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for spousal support based on her need and the length of the marriage.

Due to inconsistencies in the respondent's financial disclosure and reported expenses far exceeding his reported income, the court imputed his income at $142,598 based on the average of his reported yearly expenses.

Interim child support and spousal support were ordered to commence following the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought costs following a three-day family law trial regarding unjust enrichment, income imputation, and support.

The applicant successfully defended the respondent's unjust enrichment claim and had made a more advantageous offer to settle that issue prior to trial.

Due to divided success on the support issues, no costs were awarded for those claims.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $22,000 in costs on a full recovery basis for the unjust enrichment and resulting trust issues.

The plaintiff estate brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of an alleged debt of $536,294.74 based on a promissory note signed by the defendant and the deceased.

The defendant disputed the amount owed, arguing the note was only an estimate and that he had repaid most of the money.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence, including an affidavit from the parties' accountant, raised genuine issues of credibility and fact that required a trial.

No costs were awarded as the successful defendant failed to file a costs outline.

The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee brought a motion to be appointed as the guardian of property and personal care for an incapable adult, seeking to remove the adult's sister from the role.

The court found that the sister had failed to act in the incapable adult's best interests by removing her from a successful group home placement, failing to secure appropriate alternative residential care, leaving her to languish in a hospital mental health ward, and failing to pass her accounts.

The motion was granted, the sister was removed as guardian, and the Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed in her place.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs and the release of funds held in trust from a real estate transaction.

On the return of the motion, after the court highlighted significant evidentiary deficiencies in their affidavit materials, the defendants abandoned the motion in its entirety.

The court formally dismissed the abandoned motion and awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity scale, noting the motion was poorly executed and lacked merit.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a 24-year traditional marriage.

The respondent argued that the applicant's income should be imputed to full-time minimum wage and that support should be reduced due to alleged misconduct.

The court declined to impute income, finding no evidentiary basis to establish intentional unemployment given the applicant's age, lack of work history, and health conditions.

The court also rejected the misconduct argument.

Interim spousal support was ordered at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, amounting to $4,236 per month.

Claims for retroactive support and health benefits were dismissed without prejudice to be determined at trial.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action sought leave under Rule 31.10 to examine a non-party, the defendant's former head of Human Resources.

The plaintiff alleged he was dismissed after complaining about harassment by his manager, and sought to question the non-party about similar complaints made by other employees.

The non-party was willing to testify but was bound by a non-disclosure agreement that the defendant refused to waive.

The court granted the motion, finding that the non-party had relevant information that the plaintiff could not obtain from the defendant, and that it would be unfair to require the plaintiff to proceed to trial without this discovery.

The defendant brought a motion to vary an ex parte Mareva injunction to allow him to appoint a receiver over the property of a company controlled by the bankrupt.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the advances made by the defendant were equity rather than debt and that the security was a sham.

The court applied the 'just or convenient' test under the Courts of Justice Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Finding that the company had no active business to stabilize and that the validity of the security was highly contested, the court concluded it was not just or convenient to appoint a receiver and dismissed the motion.

The defendant sought leave from the case management judge to bring a motion extending the time to serve a responding handwriting expert report, just weeks before trial.

The defendant had repeatedly missed deadlines and failed to retain an expert until after the original documents were allegedly lost.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, holding that any request to admit the late report or address spoliation must be brought de novo before the trial judge under Rule 53.08, as further case management intervention would risk treading on the trial judge's role.

The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action sought leave to amend their Statement of Claim for a fourth time.

The defendant physicians opposed several amendments, arguing they introduced new statute-barred claims for wrongful death and spoliation of evidence, added new allegations based on unpleaded facts, and impermissibly withdrew prior admissions.

The court allowed most of the amendments, finding they merely particularized the existing factual matrix, but struck specific sentences that implicitly advanced a statute-barred wrongful death claim, contained inflammatory language, or pleaded immaterial legal conclusions regarding non-delegable duties.

The plaintiffs, eight long-term employees, brought a motion for default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action after the defendants closed their manufacturing facility and relocated it without notice.

The court found that the defendants wrongfully dismissed the plaintiffs and discriminated against them based on their age.

The court awarded damages for unpaid wages, statutory and common law notice, loss of benefits, human rights breaches, and aggravated damages.

The corporate defendants and the personal defendant were found jointly and severally liable under the common employer doctrine and the oppression remedy.

The parties, two brothers, co-owned a property that was ordered to be sold under the Partition Act, with a reference directed to an Associate Justice to determine the distribution of proceeds.

The matter mistakenly proceeded before an Assessment Officer.

The applicant moved to vary the order to allow the Assessment Officer to continue, while the respondent cross-moved for a mini-trial to assert unpleaded equitable claims for his contributions to the property.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that Assessment Officers lack jurisdiction to conduct such references and that the respondent's equitable claims were not properly pleaded.

The matter was directed to proceed before an Associate Justice as originally ordered.

The applicant sought declarations regarding the interpretation of her late husband's holographic will.

The primary issue was whether a clause stating the applicant 'shall assume ownership' of the family home granted her full ownership or merely a life interest, given a subsequent clause leaving the equity to the respondents upon the applicant's death.

The court applied the armchair rule and considered admissible extrinsic evidence, concluding that the ordinary meaning of 'assume ownership' granted full ownership.

The subsequent clause was interpreted as a gift over that would only apply if the applicant had predeceased the testator.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The respondent husband, a police officer, was suspended with base pay due to criminal charges laid by the applicant.

The court found the applicant entitled to interim spousal support.

The court declined to impute higher income to the respondent, finding his suspension did not constitute intentional under-employment while criminal charges remained pending.

The court imputed the applicant's income at a discounted rate of $45,000 to account for her recent return to work and health issues.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend their Statement of Claim to reduce the monetary amount claimed to $200,000 to proceed under the Rule 76 Simplified Procedure, and to strike the defendant's Jury Notice.

The court found that striking the Jury Notice would cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendant by depriving them of their substantive right to a jury trial.

The court granted leave to amend the claim, but ordered that the monetary limit not be reduced below $200,001.00 to keep the matter out of the mandatory Simplified Procedure rules, thereby preserving the jury trial without causing undue delay or procedural complications.

The plaintiff municipality was the victim of a cyber-fraud scheme where an unknown individual impersonated a contractor and diverted a payment of $201,285.86 to a fraudulent bank account.

After obtaining a Norwich order to identify the account holders, the plaintiff sued the defendants and noted them in default.

The court granted default judgment for the diverted funds, ordered the release of frozen funds held by the bank, and awarded $100,000 in punitive damages to deter such highly reprehensible misconduct.

Full indemnity costs were also awarded.

The respondent brought an uncontested Motion to Change seeking to terminate his spousal support obligation and rescind over $216,000 in accumulated arrears.

The original 2002 order required support until three months after the applicant completed an educational program, but the respondent failed to pay voluntarily, leading to extensive garnishment by the Family Responsibility Office starting in 2012.

The court found that the respondent had significantly overpaid his total time-limited support obligation by mid-2017 and lacked the financial means to pay the remaining arrears.

The motion was granted, the arrears were rescinded in their entirety, and the ongoing support obligation was terminated.