Superior Court of Justice

This endorsement from a case management conference addressed the timing for the delivery of the defendants' expert reports and the scheduling of motions to amend and strike pleadings.

The defendants sought to vacate expert report deadlines, arguing new claims required new experts.

The court largely denied this, granting only a brief extension for expert reports to June 9, 2023, with an exception for an ill expert.

The court also granted leave for the defendants' cross-motion to strike portions of the pleading, ordering it to be heard concurrently with the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 30, 2023, emphasizing the need to settle pleading propriety before summer.

The applicants, a group of companies under CCAA protection, brought a motion seeking court approval for an Exclusive Sales Listing Agreement, an Auction Services Agreement, and a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP) with a priority charge.

They also requested an extension of the stay of proceedings from June 2, 2023, to October 31, 2023, to facilitate an orderly wind-down of the business.

The motion was unopposed, and both the Monitor and the DIP Lender supported the requested relief.

The court found all requested relief appropriate and granted the motion.

The plaintiff, a slip priority note holder, sued the defendant sailing club for breach of contract after the club unilaterally changed its summer dockage rates, eliminating a long-standing 20% rate differential for slip priority holders.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing no such agreement existed or was breached.

The court found a valid contract based on objective intent and conduct, including 40 years of consistent application of the 20% differential.

The court determined the club breached this agreement by unilaterally altering its terms and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering damages and specific performance of the original rate differential.

This appeal concerned a decision by the Consent and Capacity Board (the "Board") confirming the appellant's incapacity to consent to treatment.

Subsequent to the Board's decision, the appellant regained capacity, leading both parties to seek to admit new evidence.

The court admitted the new evidence but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding it moot as the live controversy regarding the appellant's capacity had disappeared.

In the alternative, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the Board's original decision, which had correctly applied the legal test for capacity under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996.

The plaintiff company, RAH Transport Inc., controlled by Richard A. Hudson, entered into contracts with Pride Truck Sales Ltd. to purchase two trucks, financed by TPine Leasing Capital Corporation.

Hudson provided personal guarantees for the leases.

The plaintiffs sought rescission of the contracts and damages, alleging breaches by the defendants, including claims of fraudulent documents and vehicle deficiencies.

The defendants, particularly TPine, counterclaimed for losses incurred from the repossession and sale of the trucks after the plaintiffs ceased making lease payments.

The court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims, finding no fundamental breach of contract or grounds for rescission.

The court allowed TPine's counterclaim, holding RAH Transport Inc. and Richard Anthony Hudson jointly and severally liable for damages resulting from their breach of the lease agreements.

Kelly Jacobs was convicted by a jury of impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing the death of Beulah Peters.

The court considered sentencing objectives, aggravating factors (high intoxication, prolonged drinking, dangerous driving, unlicensed driving, frequency of impaired driving in the community, impact on victims), and mitigating factors (no prior criminal record, positive Gladue report, strong community support, employment, education, remorse, compliance with release conditions except alcohol abstinence).

The court applied Gladue principles, noting that the offender's circumstances did not diminish moral culpability to warrant a further reduction in sentence.

A conditional sentence was deemed unfit.

The applicant, BBB Canada Ltd., sought court approval under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for the assignment of several leases to Canadian Tire Corporation, Winners Merchants International L.P., and DKB Capital, and an extension of the stay period.

The motion was unopposed and supported by the Monitor, who deemed the transactions fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the creditors.

The court approved the lease assignments and extended the stay period to allow for final reconciliation and settlement of liquidation sale amounts.

The Attorney General of Canada sought an order to commit the respondent, Jayant Bhatia, into custody for extradition to the United States for prosecution on fraud charges.

Bhatia brought a disclosure application regarding a cooperating witness (CW-1), arguing CW-1's identification evidence was manifestly unreliable.

The court summarily dismissed the disclosure application, finding that a witness's cooperation or criminal record is insufficient to deem evidence manifestly unreliable in an extradition context, and that ample independent evidence of identification existed.

The court then granted the committal order for extradition, finding sufficient evidence for trial on all essential elements of fraud, including identification.

This endorsement addresses two motions in a family law matter.

The respondent father sought increased parenting time, equal sharing of reunification therapy costs, and an order preventing the applicant mother from recording children's telephone calls.

The applicant mother sought supervised and public parenting time, and a higher contribution from the father for therapy costs.

The court granted the father's requests regarding the recording of calls and the equal division of reunification therapy costs.

The mother's request for supervised and public parenting time was dismissed.

The court ordered a more gradual increase in the father's parenting time than he proposed, aiming for a shared parenting regime, and denied the father's request for make-up parenting time.

The plaintiff, a not-for-profit organization, moved for default judgment against two defendants, Darren Pennock (former Executive Director) and Nancie Parker, whose statements of defence were struck.

The plaintiff alleged Pennock committed extensive fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by misappropriating funds, and that Parker was liable for knowing assistance, willful blindness, and unjust enrichment.

The court granted judgment for damages, prejudgment interest, and punitive damages against Pennock, declaring the judgment non-dischargeable in bankruptcy due to fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

The parties separated in 2018 and had been following a week-about parenting schedule for their child, despite the mother relocating to Innisfil and the father remaining in London.

At trial, the mother sought an order for the child to alternate residences annually, while the father sought primary residence.

The court found the mother's proposal would be disruptive and not in the child's best interests.

Considering the mother's history of impaired driving (including an incident with the child in the car) and the father's history of family violence, the court ordered joint decision-making responsibility and primary residence with the father, with strict conditions on the mother's parenting time regarding alcohol and drug use.

This motion concerned the enforcement of a settlement agreement reached between neighbouring property owners regarding a land boundary dispute.

The applicants sought an order vesting title of the disputed lands in their names, as per the agreement.

The respondents attempted to introduce new terms after the agreement was confirmed and part performance had occurred.

The court found a binding settlement agreement existed, supported by clarifying emails and part performance (survey work and iron bar placement), which also took the agreement out of the Statute of Frauds requirement for written contracts concerning land.

The motion was granted, enforcing the original settlement terms.

The respondent moved to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction and to set aside ex parte orders from 2018 and 2019.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the ex parte orders, finding it was too late given the years of litigation abroad under the Hague Convention.

Regarding jurisdiction, the court found Ontario clearly had jurisdiction as the children were habitually resident there.

The court declined to rule on forum non conveniens (s. 25 CLRA) as premature, pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal in Morocco concerning the children's return, noting concerns about the UAE court's custody decision (gender bias, lack of best interests consideration, and recognition of Talaq divorces).

This case involved a dispute over a 20-year commercial lease agreement between Bellwoods Brewery Inc. (Tenant) and 1896841 Ontario Limited (Landlord) for a second brewery and event space location.

Bellwoods alleged the Landlord breached the lease by failing to vacate the premises as required, delaying their operations.

The Landlord counterclaimed for unpaid rent.

A separate action by Lennard Commercial Realty for unpaid commission was also heard.

The court found the Landlord in breach of the lease for failing to vacate the premises and ordered specific performance of the lease, along with significant damages to Bellwoods for lost profits due to the delay.

The Landlord's counterclaim was dismissed.

Lennard's action for commission was also dismissed, as the contract stipulated payment upon occupancy, which had not yet occurred.

The defendants' custom-built home and garage encroached significantly onto the plaintiffs' neighbouring property.

The plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction for the removal of the encroachment.

The defendants admitted trespass but sought an equitable remedy allowing them to retain the land, and brought a third-party claim against the builder, surveyor, and municipality for negligence and breach of contract.

The court declined to order an injunction, finding it would be oppressive to the defendants and that the injury to the plaintiffs was small and compensable by money.

The court ordered the severance and transfer of the encroached land to the defendants for compensation.

The court also found all three third parties liable for the encroachment, apportioning fault 70% to the builder, 15% to the surveyor, and 15% to the municipality, and ordered them to fully indemnify the defendants.

This costs endorsement followed a summary judgment motion where portable school classrooms were found to be "improvements" under the Construction Act.

OnPoint Group Ltd., the successful party on the main issue, sought full indemnity costs, while intervening parties also sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded OnPoint Group Ltd. $35,000 and the intervenors $9,500, both on a partial indemnity basis.

The decision considered factors such as mixed success, complexity, and the novelty of the issue, and addressed the impact of bilingual proceedings on costs.

The Crown sought to admit the defendant's video and audio-recorded statement as voluntary.

The defendant brought a cross-application alleging a breach of his s. 10(a) Charter rights, seeking exclusion of the statement.

The court found the statement voluntary but concluded that the defendant's s. 10(b) Charter rights were infringed because he was not given a full opportunity to engage with counsel after it became apparent he was confused about the extent of his jeopardy.

Applying the Grant factors, the court excluded the statement, finding the breach significant and not critical to the Crown's case.

The plaintiff, a commercial tenant, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant landlord from terminating its tenancy and repossessing the premises due to alleged discrepancies in square footage and other complaints.

The plaintiff was in significant rent arrears, having unilaterally abated rent based on its claims.

The court found no serious issue to be tried, emphasizing the tenant's obligation to pay rent in full under a commercial lease, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

Criminal trial arising from allegations that a church pastor assaulted one complainant in a parking lot, sexually assaulted another adult congregant over several years, sexually exploited a younger congregant while she was 16 and 17, and sexually assaulted her by digital penetration on her 18th birthday.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework, rejected the accused’s evidence as disingenuous and unreliable, and accepted the complainants’ evidence in its material respects, including evidence of spiritual manipulation, grooming, controlling communications, and admissions made during a recorded confrontation.

The court held that implied consent had no application to a purported deliverance-based physical restraint, and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainants did not consent and that the accused knew of their non-consent.

Findings of guilt were entered on all counts.

This motion sought court approval for a proposed settlement affecting a minor plaintiff who sustained a wrist fracture from a slip and fall accident at school.

The defendants denied liability, raising issues of causation and damages.

The action settled for $30,000 at mediation.

The court approved the settlement, finding it reasonable, fair, and in the minor plaintiff's best interests, and also approved the counsel's fees and disbursements, noting the role of contingency fee agreements in providing access to justice.