Superior Court of Justice

The plaintiff corporation entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale to buy a residential property from the defendants.

The defendants subsequently refused to close the transaction, breaching the agreement.

The plaintiff sued for specific performance, arguing the property was uniquely suited as a recreational compound for its principals' extended family.

The defendants argued the purchase was a commercial investment and damages were the appropriate remedy.

The court found the property had a peculiar and special value to the plaintiff and ordered specific performance.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of a commercial property, or alternatively, to hold 50% of the net proceeds of any sale in trust.

The plaintiffs claimed that a 1997 transfer of their 50% interest in the corporation owning the property was subject to an unwritten trust agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm as they were ultimately seeking monetary compensation.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the defendants due to the plaintiffs' significant delay in prosecuting the action.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking production of 12 years of condominium board minutes, the examination for discovery of a non-party former director, the return of renovation deposits, and answers to refusals from a co-defendant's examination.

The court dismissed the requests against the condominium, finding the plaintiff had not met the test under Rule 31.10 to examine a non-party and had not established entitlement to further minutes or deposits.

The court partially granted the refusals motion, ordering the co-defendant to answer three specific questions.

The defendant was charged with criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm, and impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, following a horrific motor vehicle collision.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the driver, as the defendant claimed his friend was driving the vehicle.

The court applied the W.D. analysis and relied on circumstantial evidence, including mirror-image seatbelt injuries sustained by the occupants, to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the driver.

The court also found that the defendant's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol and that his driving at excessive speeds constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable person.

The defendant was found guilty on all counts.

The plaintiffs, former tenants of the defendant, brought an action for unjust enrichment seeking compensation for extensive renovations and the construction of a large garage on the defendant's rental property.

The defendant counterclaimed for damages, alleging the plaintiffs left the property in disrepair and the garage incomplete.

The Superior Court of Justice found the plaintiffs' evidence credible and established that the defendant was unjustly enriched by the improvements.

The court also found an oral agreement existed for the defendant to reimburse the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' claim was granted, awarding them $42,580 in damages, and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought a case conference to establish a timetable for a certification motion in a proposed class proceeding against Keurig Canada Inc. regarding alleged misrepresentations about the recyclability of K-Cups.

The court noted the existence of three other overlapping proposed class proceedings in British Columbia, Federal Court, and Toronto.

The court declined to fix a date for the certification motion at this stage, instead ordering that a carriage motion be brought within 60 days to determine which action should proceed.

The plaintiff was successful on a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, being awarded $208,448.64 in damages.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The defendant argued costs should be denied because the action should have been pursued under the Simplified Procedure.

The court found the plaintiff beat his Rule 49 offer and that Rule 76.13 did not apply to deny costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $32,333.13, reducing the requested amount due to excessive time claimed.

Sentencing of two co-accused following a judge-alone trial.

The first accused, a repeat offender with a lengthy record, was convicted of multiple firearms offences, assault with a weapon, drug trafficking, and driving offences.

After applying the Kienapple rule to stay several duplicative counts, the court sentenced him to a total of 10 years in custody.

The second accused, who had a limited record and demonstrated significant rehabilitation, was convicted of being an occupant in a vehicle with a firearm and possession of cocaine.

The court sentenced the second accused to an 18-month conditional sentence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing to compel the defendants to produce documentation obtained from non-parties pursuant to a prior court order.

The defendants responded that they had not yet received any documents from the non-parties and agreed to provide them to the plaintiffs in due course once received.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion as premature, without prejudice to their right to bring it back if the defendants fail to produce the documents after receiving them.

The parties brought competing motions regarding three disputed terms of their 2019 Minutes of Settlement: the removal of snowmobiles, the form of a share transfer agreement, and the payout of a life insurance policy.

The court ordered the applicant to remove the snowmobiles by a specific date, rejected the applicant's complex share transfer agreement in favour of a simpler one with basic representations and an indemnity, and refused to set aside the life insurance provision, finding no unilateral or mutual mistake that would justify rescission.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay, failure to attend examinations for discovery, failure to appoint a new lawyer, and failure to pay a previous costs award.

The action, arising from a 2009 motor vehicle accident, had been stalled due to the self-represented plaintiff's refusal to attend in-person discoveries, citing medical reasons supported only by an outdated doctor's letter.

The court declined to dismiss the action immediately, finding the medical evidence insufficient to justify written discoveries but opting to give the plaintiff a final opportunity to attend an in-person examination.

The motion to dismiss for delay was adjourned until after the discovery, and the other requests for dismissal were denied.

The offender, an Indigenous man, was convicted of sexual assault, forcible confinement, assault, and threatening his former intimate partner, an Indigenous woman.

The Crown sought a global sentence of five years, while the defence sought two years.

The court weighed the aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability and the impact of the offences, against significant mitigating factors, particularly the offender's Indigenous background (Gladue factors), onerous bail conditions, and strong potential for rehabilitation.

The court sentenced the offender to a global term of two years' imprisonment, along with ancillary orders.

The accused, charged with manslaughter and other offences, sought leave to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiants of an Information to Obtain (ITO) a general warrant.

The accused argued that the authorizing judge was deprived of relevant information regarding the police's operational plan, including the intention to obtain a statement and the use of the Emergency Response Unit.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that cross-examination was not necessary because the arguments regarding the omissions and the use of a youth record could be made based on the evidence already before the court.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary a temporary order regarding the choice of school for the parties' 5-year-old child and for further financial disclosure from the respondent father.

The temporary order gave the father decision-making authority over schooling, provided the school was approximately equidistant between their homes.

The schools previously considered would not accept the child due to catchment area rules.

The court interpreted the temporary order and directed that the child be enrolled at Nelson Mandela Public School, which was equidistant and willing to accept her.

The court also ordered the father to provide disclosure consistent with his undertaking in his affidavit.

No costs were awarded due to mixed success.

The Ouyang defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff under Rules 56.01(1)(a) and (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the defendants failed to prove the plaintiff resided outside Ontario under subrule (a).

However, under subrule (e), the court determined the plaintiff's claim against the Ouyang defendants appeared frivolous and vexatious, as the loan agreement was with a non-party corporation and guaranteed by another defendant, with no legal basis for the Ouyang defendants' liability.

The court also found insufficient evidence of the plaintiff's assets in Ontario.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post $25,000 in security for costs.

The moving party, a heritage foundation, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that granted zoning and Official Plan amendments to allow the construction of two high-rise buildings in downtown Kingston.

The moving party argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to interpret the Official Plan as a whole and incorrectly interpreting specific compatibility criteria.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Tribunal's balancing of the Official Plan's competing objectives of heritage preservation and urban intensification was a question of mixed fact and law, not an extricable error of law.

The respondent law firm brought a motion to strike a supplementary motion record and subsequent affidavits delivered by the applicants in an application to assess the firm's accounts.

The applicants delivered the 1,229-page supplementary record over six years after the application was commenced, without leave, and after the applicants had already been cross-examined on their original affidavits.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the late delivery constituted improper case-splitting and an attempt to 'shore up' evidence post-cross-examination.

The court also denied the applicants' request to cross-examine a witness, finding they had forfeited the right by failing to exercise reasonable diligence.

The defendants brought motions to strike portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim relating to negligence, defamation, and intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The plaintiff, an employee of a children's aid society and a grandmother to children involved in a protection investigation, alleged the defendants caused her harm through their handling of the case.

The court struck the negligence claim without leave to amend, finding no duty of care is owed by a children's aid society to a family member.

The defamation and intentional infliction of mental suffering claims were struck with leave to amend due to insufficient pleading of material facts.

The court declined to anonymize the pleadings or dismiss the action against one defendant based on statutory immunity at this preliminary stage.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking leave to obtain a passport for the parties' young child and to travel to India for six to eight weeks.

The respondent father opposed the motion, citing concerns that the mother would not return to Canada.

The court dismissed the travel and passport requests, noting the mother's tenuous connection to Canada, the lack of a specific travel plan, and the fact that India is not a signatory to the Hague Convention.

The court also severed the divorce from corollary relief and adjourned the issue of financial disclosure.

A case conference was held to address multiple related actions.

On consent, the claims against Shahzad Siddiqui and Borden Ladner Gervais LLP were dismissed with prejudice and without costs.

The court directed counsel to confer regarding the potential release of individual defendants and established a timetable for scheduling upcoming dispositive motions.