Superior Court of Justice

The plaintiff, a former Minister of State, brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendants, a lawyer and his law firm.

The defendants had refused to answer questions based on solicitor-client privilege and parliamentary privilege.

The court held that asserting privilege was not a collateral attack on a previous order refusing to strike the claim.

The court upheld the assertion of parliamentary privilege regarding testimony before a parliamentary committee.

However, the court found the assertion of solicitor-client privilege to be overbroad and ordered the defendants to answer certain questions that did not reveal privileged communications.

The self-represented applicants successfully applied to set aside an arbitral award in favour of the respondent condominium corporation.

They sought costs of $37,814.65 on a full indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the principles for awarding costs to self-represented litigants, noting they must demonstrate they did work ordinarily done by a lawyer and incurred an opportunity cost.

Although the applicants did not prove lost remunerative activity, the court awarded them $7,500 all-inclusive to facilitate access to justice, sanction the respondent's inappropriate behaviour, and encourage settlements.

In a Commercial List receivership arising from judgment enforcement, the receiver moved for contempt after the respondent swore a declaration used to support a criminal complaint in Panama challenging the receiver's replacement of directors of a Panamanian subsidiary.

The court held it had jurisdiction because the alleged misconduct had a real and substantial link to Ontario, including the Ontario receivership order, the Ontario corporation in receivership, and the enforcement of an Ontario judgment.

Applying the civil contempt framework, the court found the appointment order was clear and unequivocal, the respondent knew of it, and he intentionally breached it by purporting to act for the debtor and by supporting foreign proceedings against the receiver without leave.

The court declined to find criminal contempt because the notice of motion did not provide sufficient particulars.

The applicant sought a final order approving a proposed plan of arrangement under section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act to facilitate a going private transaction.

The arrangement was overwhelmingly approved by the shareholders at a special meeting.

The court found that all statutory and court-ordered requirements were met, the arrangement was put forward in good faith, and it was fair and reasonable.

The final approval order was granted.

The plaintiffs commenced an action in 2015 but took no steps for over five years while the principal of the plaintiff corporations faced criminal charges.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing to extend the time to set the action down for trial, but later abandoned it and served a trial record.

The defendants brought cross-motions to proceed with the status hearing.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, as they unilaterally held the action in abeyance without communicating with the defendants.

The court also found the plaintiffs failed to rebut the strong presumption of prejudice arising from the delay.

The action was dismissed for delay.

The applicants, co-owners of a property, brought an application to discharge a 1961 mortgage registered against the property.

The original mortgagees could not be located despite extensive searches.

The court was satisfied that the mortgage had likely been paid in full and that there was no reasonable prospect of obtaining a discharge from the mortgagees.

The court ordered the mortgage discharged pursuant to section 12(8) of the Mortgages Act.

The accused, the former Executive Director of a non-profit charity, was charged with fraud over $5,000 and breach of probation.

The Crown alleged he used corporate credit cards and cheques for unauthorized personal expenses, including hotels, sports equipment, and cash advances, totaling over $60,000.

The accused argued he had discretion over business expenses and that the Crown failed to prove the expenses were personal.

The court rejected the accused's arguments, finding the direct and circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the transactions were unauthorized personal expenses.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The applicant tenant brought an urgent application to prevent the respondent landlords from terminating a commercial lease or exercising distraint after the tenant unilaterally withheld rent.

The tenant claimed the rent was calculated incorrectly by including the parking lot.

The parties agreed on consent that the tenant would pay all arrears and ongoing rent to keep the lease in good standing pending a hearing on the merits of the rent abatement.

The court fixed costs of the urgent motion at $18,000 payable by the tenant.

The applicants, representing members of Ontario's Sinhalese diaspora, brought applications challenging the constitutionality of the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, 2021.

They argued the Act was ultra vires the province and violated their rights under sections 2(b) and 15 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applications, finding that the Act is in pith and substance related to education, which falls within provincial jurisdiction.

The court further held that the Act does not restrict freedom of expression, nor does it create a discriminatory distinction based on enumerated or analogous grounds.

The defendants requested a review of the plaintiffs' statement of claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the action by one plaintiff, who was a declared vexatious litigant and had not obtained leave to institute the proceeding.

The court stayed the action by the second plaintiff, noting the claims against judges and court officials appeared frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and directed the registrar to issue a notice for written submissions on why the action should not be dismissed and his fee waiver cancelled.

The offender pleaded guilty to fraud over $5000 and money laundering after operating a $29 million Ponzi scheme called Debit Direct.

He sold fake point-of-sale debit terminals to hundreds of investors and transferred the funds to the Dominican Republic.

The court sentenced the offender to 7 years in prison, less pre-sentence custody, and ordered $26.9 million in restitution along with a matching fine in lieu of forfeiture.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment by the plaintiff bank, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis relying on contractual provisions in the credit agreements.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff, fixing them at $5,500 against the primary debtor and $50 against the co-debtor whose liability was limited to a small overdraft amount.

The plaintiff tenant entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with the defendant landlord to buy the residential property she was leasing.

A dispute arose on closing regarding a $190,000 credit in a schedule to the agreement.

The transaction failed to close, and the plaintiff sued for specific performance, bringing a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff established a triable claim to an interest in land because the property was her home and therefore unique, and the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The respondent estate trustee brought a motion to question the applicant's former family law counsel regarding the applicant's state of mind and receipt of legal advice prior to signing a separation agreement.

The applicant sought to set aside the agreement on grounds of duress and lack of independent legal advice, but opposed the questioning, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the applicant impliedly waived privilege by putting her state of mind and lack of legal advice at issue.

The court ordered the applicant's former counsel to attend for questioning and limited the questioning of the deceased's former counsel to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes, approve a $105,000 settlement, and approve class counsel fees and a representative plaintiff honorarium.

The class action alleged that the defendants misclassified event staffing workers as independent contractors rather than employees, depriving them of minimum employment standards.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes, finding the criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable given the significant risk of non-recovery due to the corporate defendant ceasing operations.

Class counsel fees of $50,454.50 plus disbursements were approved, and the representative plaintiff was awarded a $4,000 honorarium.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office sought a Temporary Default Order against the payor for child support arrears totaling over $52,000.

The payor argued he was unable to work due to a medical condition and that he had prepaid support through a matrimonial home refinancing transaction.

The court rejected the payor's evidence as uncorroborated and found the medical letter inadmissible.

The court held the payor failed to demonstrate a valid reason excusing his default and ordered him to pay ongoing support plus a nominal amount toward arrears, with a suspended committal term for future default.

The mother brought a motion to change a final order to permit her to relocate the parties' child from Ottawa to the Greater Toronto Area, where she resides with her new husband and their children.

The father opposed the relocation and sought to maintain the existing shared parenting arrangement.

The court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that the relocation was in the child's best interests, noting the child's strong preference and the father's limited time spent with the child during his parenting time.

The court granted the relocation, ordered a new parenting schedule, and ordered the father to pay ongoing child support based on the table amount, while imputing an income of $40,000 to the mother for the period of shared parenting.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment seeking damages after the defendant's dog ran into her at an off-leash dog park, causing a leg fracture.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a dog accidentally knocking someone over while running in an off-leash park does not constitute an 'attack' under section 2(1) of the Dog Owners' Liability Act without evidence of aggression.

The court assessed damages at $46,507.38 and granted the plaintiff leave to proceed to an undefended trial on liability if further evidence could be adduced.

The moving party brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a separation agreement reached via email correspondence.

The responding party argued that the moving party had repudiated the agreement by changing counsel and failing to sign a formal settlement agreement before the offer's expiry.

The court found no evidence of repudiation, noting that the moving party's retention of new counsel to review the agreement did not constitute resiling from it.

The court concluded that a binding agreement had been reached and granted the motion, awarding substantial indemnity costs to the moving party.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's lawyer and his law firm as counsel of record, arguing that the lawyer would be a necessary witness at trial regarding allegations of interference with economic relations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it highly doubtful that the lawyer would be a necessary witness on a material issue.

The court concluded the motion was premature and brought mainly for tactical reasons, driven by one defendant's strong antipathy toward the lawyer.