Superior Court of Justice

The applicants, former members of the respondent church, sought to declare the termination of their membership null and void, arguing the church failed to follow its by-laws and denied them natural justice by not holding an oral hearing.

The court found that the church's decision-making body was properly constituted and had sufficiently investigated the applicants' disruptive conduct.

The court held that natural justice in this context did not require an oral hearing, and the applicants were given an adequate opportunity to respond to the case against them.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The defendant, a Spanish law firm, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, an Ontario corporation, sued the defendant for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation regarding the status of patent applications in Panama and Costa Rica, which had lapsed.

The court applied the Van Breda test and found that the plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case for the tort of misrepresentation occurring in Ontario, as the plaintiff had not provided the necessary powers of attorney in time and the defendant had not provided incorrect information.

The motion was granted and the claim was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendants, alleging they were defrauded of over $800,000 CAD/USD through a fake investment scheme.

The defendants allegedly promised to invest the funds in options, futures, or forex, but instead diverted the funds and ceased communications.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of fraud, conspiracy, breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, knowing assistance, and conversion.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, finding a serious risk of asset dissipation.

The moving parties, six limited partners holding 54.5% of the shares in a family limited partnership, sought leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of the limited partnership and related corporate entities against the general partner, its sole director, and other parties.

The court held that while there is no statutory right for limited partners to bring a derivative action under the Limited Partnerships Act, the common law fraud exception to the rule in Foss v. Harbottle permits such an action where the general partner is the alleged wrongdoer.

Leave was granted to bring the derivative action on behalf of the limited partnership against the general partner and its director, but denied against third parties and on behalf of the underlying corporate entities.

The plaintiffs brought an action against a child welfare agency following the suicide of a teenager in its care.

After the expiry of the two-year limitation period under the Trustee Act, the plaintiffs sought to add a doctor and a hospital as defendants, arguing that the late discovery of a clinical note constituted special circumstances or fraudulent concealment.

The moving parties brought summary judgment motions to dismiss the action against them as statute-barred.

The court granted the motions, finding no evidence of fraudulent concealment and concluding that the plaintiffs' delay in pursuing the action and seeking to add the parties did not justify extending the limitation period.

The plaintiff appealed an Associate Judge's order dismissing its motion for a protective order over the production of its financial statements to the defendants, who are direct competitors.

The plaintiff sought to limit disclosure to 'counsel's eyes only', arguing the statements contained confidential and commercially sensitive information.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge did not err in concluding the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real and substantial risk of serious financial harm.

A motion to adduce fresh evidence was also dismissed as the proposed evidence would not be conclusive of the issue on appeal.

Following an 11-day trial regarding parenting arrangements, the successful applicant sought costs of $10,000.

The respondent argued for a nominal award of $2,000 due to his limited ability to pay.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful and the respondent's conduct unreasonably lengthened the trial.

Despite the applicant's full indemnity costs approaching $90,000, the court accepted her request for $10,000 as appropriate given the respondent's limited means.

The court also ordered that the respondent cannot initiate new proceedings without leave if he defaults on the first $2,000 installment.

The defendant insurer, Unifund, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against it.

The central issue was whether the plaintiff daughter resided with her mother at the time of a motor vehicle accident, which would entitle her to coverage under the mother's OPCF 44R Family Protection Endorsement.

The court reviewed evidence from examinations under oath and concluded that the daughter maintained her own separate residence and did not reside with her mother, despite frequently staying over to provide care.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding residency and granted summary judgment dismissing the action against Unifund.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for damages arising from a failed real estate transaction for a pre-construction home.

The defendant argued the property was subject to undisclosed environmental contamination and restrictions.

The court found no evidence of contamination and noted the defendant had a proxy sign the agreement and failed to exercise a solicitor review condition.

Summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff, awarding damages for the loss on resale and carrying costs, though a claim for interest was rejected.

Partial summary judgment was also granted dismissing the defendant's counterclaim against the plaintiff and its brokers.

The defendant in a reinsurance dispute brought a motion to amend its Statement of Defence to particularize policy exclusions it relied upon to dispute the quantum of a business interruption claim.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the amendments amounted to the withdrawal of an admission under Rule 51.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and would cause prejudice.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendant had always disputed quantum, the amendments merely clarified how quantum should be calculated, and no deliberate concession had been made that would trigger Rule 51.05.

At a case conference in a securities class action, the plaintiffs sought to amend their pleading to add a secondary market claim, which requires leave to proceed under the Securities Act.

The defendants argued the motion to amend should be heard first as a preliminary matter, while the plaintiffs argued it should be heard together with the motions for leave to proceed and certification.

The court ordered that all three motions be heard together to avoid litigation by installment and potential separate appeals.

The plaintiff physician sued the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for abuse of process and intentional infliction of mental distress after his medical license was revoked.

The College moved for summary judgment or to strike the claim.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding that the plaintiff's claims were incapable of proof due to the absolute bar on admitting College proceeding records under s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

Furthermore, the College and its committees were protected by absolute privilege, judicial immunity, and statutory good faith immunity under s. 38 of the Act.

The respondent mother brought an interim motion seeking to relocate with the parties' child from Norfolk County to Vaughan, Ontario, pending trial.

The applicant father opposed the move, arguing it would uproot the child from his established community and school.

Applying the test for interim mobility, the court found that there were genuine issues for trial regarding the parties' parenting time and that the mother had not provided compelling reasons to justify disrupting the status quo before a full evidentiary hearing.

The motion for interim relocation, along with requests regarding COVID-19 vaccination and therapy enrollment, was dismissed.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown sought to introduce a video chronology prepared by police.

The chronology compiled still shots from extensive surveillance video, adding identifying information, circles, arrows, and short neutral descriptions.

The defence objected, arguing the video itself is the only admissible evidence and the chronology amounted to Crown advocacy.

The court ruled the video chronology admissible as a demonstrative aid to assist the jury in comprehending voluminous and complex video evidence.

The court held that such summaries are permissible if they are neutral, introduced through a witness who can be cross-examined, and accompanied by limiting instructions to the jury.

Following an 18-day trial on parenting issues, the applicant sought costs of $418,795.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle, noting the applicant obtained a result more favourable than her final offer, entitling her to elevated costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the respondent's behaviour and settlement positions unreasonable.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $315,300 plus HST, inclusive of costs for several interim motions.

The plaintiff was wholly successful on an interim injunction motion and sought partial indemnity costs of $79,836.56.

The plaintiff argued costs should be awarded immediately as there might not be a trial, while the defendants argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge.

The court exercised its discretion to order costs in the cause, noting it is the preferable course for interlocutory injunctions, but allowed the parties to return for a costs determination if no trial is held within 18 months.

The accused was charged with conspiracy, break and enter, and possession of stolen property relating to the theft of copper plates from railway boxcars.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of two unsavoury accomplices, cellphone tower data, and similar fact evidence from a prior conviction.

The court found the accomplice testimony contradictory regarding the accused's involvement in the break and enters, resulting in acquittals on those charges.

However, the court found the cellphone data and similar fact evidence sufficiently confirmed the accomplices' testimony regarding the accused's assistance in loading the stolen copper, resulting in a conviction for possession of stolen property.

The applicant proceeded with an uncontested trial seeking a divorce, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and a permanent restraining order.

The respondent did not participate in the proceedings.

The court imputed an annual income of $72,800 to the respondent based on his profession as an electrician and ordered him to pay spousal support of $495 per month for six years, noting his immigration sponsorship of the applicant.

The court also ordered an equalization payment of $59,517.40, issued a permanent restraining order due to the respondent's threatening behaviour, and awarded full indemnity costs of $45,762.57 against the respondent for bad faith conduct.

The applicant unit owner sought an oppression remedy against the respondent condominium corporation due to excessive noise and vibrations emanating from an adjacent garbage room.

The applicant endured the noise for over a decade while the corporation responded in a delayed and piecemeal fashion, eventually halting approved remediation work when the application was commenced.

The court found that while the applicant did not provide expert evidence to prove the corporation's proposed remediation plan was inadequate, the corporation's inexcusable delay and retaliatory stoppage of work unfairly disregarded the applicant's interests.

The court awarded $30,000 in damages for oppression and ordered the corporation to complete the approved remediation work.

The plaintiff brought an action for fraud and misappropriation against a former employee and the operators of a gas station, alleging a scheme to overcharge for fuel.

Both parties brought motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery.

The court ordered both parties to answer specific questions, directed the defendant to re-attend for a brief further examination, and denied the defendants' request to examine a second representative of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was awarded $3,500 in costs.