Superior Court of Justice

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, failed to attend the virtual hearing despite receiving notice.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims regarding condominium liens and related disputes were either barred by a full and final release signed in a 2009 action, statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, or raised no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and partial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants.

The moving party, Suncity, brought a motion to declare the responding party's construction lien expired for failure to perfect within the 90-day period under the old Construction Act.

The responding party argued the new Construction Act applied, which would extend the perfection period to 150 days, claiming Suncity was an 'owner' rather than a 'contractor'.

The court relied on clear admissions in the responding party's statement of claim that Suncity was the general contractor and Epic was the sole owner.

Consequently, the old Construction Act applied, the lien was declared expired, and the action was dismissed.

The defendant moving party brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered against a 700-acre property.

The property was sold to the moving party under a power of sale while concurrently being sold by the owner to the plaintiffs.

The court found that there were triable issues regarding the validity of the power of sale and whether the moving party was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

The court concluded that the equities favoured maintaining the CPL to prevent the property from being encumbered or sold before trial, and found no material non-disclosure by the plaintiffs when they initially obtained the CPL ex parte.

The motion to discharge the CPL was dismissed.

The applicant sought to enforce a right of first refusal to purchase a jointly owned property at its 2019 fair market value.

The respondent argued the right was never validly exercised and sought an immediate sale under the Partition Act.

The court reserved its decision on the merits of the right of first refusal but ordered the immediate sale of the property at current fair market value, noting that damages would be an adequate remedy if a breach of contract occurred.

The self-represented defendant requested a case conference to dispute a recently signed consent order dismissing the action, alleging he did not agree to waive the 30-day appeal period and accusing plaintiff's counsel of switching signature pages and the court of bias.

The court maintained that the signed consent was valid and the order had been entered.

The court directed the defendant to bring a formal motion on notice if he wished to set aside the order.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 for an order preserving $543,515 in Canadian currency seized during a murder investigation.

The currency was found in the deceased's residence along with large quantities of controlled substances and drug trafficking paraphernalia.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the currency was the proceeds or instrument of unlawful activity and granted the preservation order, noting no interests of justice weighed against it.

Following a bifurcated trial regarding the departure of financial advisors and the valuation of a business, the successful plaintiffs sought costs.

The court found that while formal Rule 49 offers were not triggered, the defendants' reprehensible and deceitful conduct prior to litigation, as well as their refusal to admit facts during the trial, warranted an enhanced costs award.

Costs were fixed at $160,000, payable jointly and severally by two of the defendants.

A third defendant, against whom liability was found but no damages were sought, was not held liable for costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to enforce non-competition and non-solicitation clauses against a former financial advisor who had sold his book of business to them seven years prior.

The court found the non-competition clause to be overbroad and unenforceable, but upheld the non-solicitation clause as reasonable and severable.

Finding a strong prima facie case of breach, irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience favouring the plaintiffs, the court granted a limited injunction prohibiting the defendant from soliciting his former clients and using the plaintiffs' business records.

The plaintiff in a construction lien action brought a motion for leave under s. 67(2) of the Construction Act to amend his pleadings, discovery undertaking answers, and Scott Schedules to include claims for two additional extras and correct accounting errors.

The defendants opposed, arguing the amendments withdrew admissions and introduced statute-barred claims.

The Master found the original pleadings were not admissions under Rule 51.05 and the amendments merely clarified existing claims rather than introducing new causes of action.

Finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants, the Master granted leave for all requested amendments.

The Bank of Montreal applied for a receiver over a group of fitness clubs (the Crunch Group) following defaults on credit facilities.

The parties reached an agreement where the debtors' nominee would purchase the debt and security.

The Bank accepted the offer but subsequently refused to provide a fully executed copy of the agreement, causing the purchaser to lose financing and fail to close on the scheduled date.

The court found the Bank's actions, including abruptly closing the debtors' bank accounts and unreasonably refusing to deliver the executed agreement, breached the duty of good faith.

The court ordered the Bank to close the transaction.

The appellant appealed her convictions for impaired driving, failing to comply with a breath demand, and dangerous driving.

At trial, she argued that her drink had been spiked, leading to involuntary intoxication.

The trial judge rejected this defence and convicted her.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge had applied the wrong standard of proof, erroneously requiring the defence to establish a 'likelihood' of involuntary intoxication rather than merely raising a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

The applicant mother brought an uncontested motion to change a final order that had provided for shared decision-making, week-about parenting, and no child support.

Following an incident where the respondent father locked the children out of his home, the children resided exclusively with the applicant.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding both parenting and child support.

After conducting a judicial interview with the two older children, the court awarded the applicant sole decision-making and primary residence, with no contact for the respondent.

The court also imputed an income of $50,000 to the respondent and ordered him to pay Guideline child support and his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant brought an application under the Evidence Act and Canada Evidence Act to compel the respondent to attend an examination for a proceeding in the United States District Court.

The court ordered the respondent to attend the examination via videoconference, conditional upon the applicant delivering $7,500 in attendance money and a protective order.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the respondent in the fixed amount of $1,000.

The accused was charged with the attempted murder of his spouse and assault with a weapon against another individual.

The court acquitted the accused of the assault with a weapon charge due to the unreliability of the complainant's evidence.

On the attempted murder charge, security video captured the accused brutally beating his unconscious spouse, causing life-threatening injuries.

The court found the specific intent to kill was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but convicted the accused of the included offence of aggravated assault, rejecting the defence of necessity.

The plaintiffs sought clarification of an endorsement that partially approved a $10,000,000 medical malpractice settlement on behalf of a minor.

The court convened a case conference and agreed to minor edits regarding the names of medical professionals and the exact amount of proposed counsel fees.

The court also clarified the net recovery amount for the minor's parents, which could be used for a property purchase, and the distribution of the structured and non-structured settlement funds.

The court remained seized of the matter pending the final disposition of the proposed counsel fee and the application for guardianship of property.

The defendant brought a motion for a declaration that the plaintiff did not sustain a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function following a motor vehicle accident.

The court applied the three-part test from Meyer v. Bright and considered the plaintiff's evidence, including testimony from his doctor and family members.

The court found that the plaintiff's impairments were permanent, serious, and substantially interfered with his activities of daily living.

The defendant's motion was dismissed, as the plaintiff met his onus of establishing that his impairments met the statutory threshold.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against a corporate defendant and its principal for defaulting on a small business loan and personal guarantee.

The defendants argued they did not receive independent legal advice and that the COVID-19 pandemic frustrated the contract, as their restaurant was forced to close.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no requirement for independent legal advice and holding that the pandemic did not render the repayment obligations radically different from what was originally agreed.

The father was entirely successful at a trial regarding a motion to change, where the court found the mother engaged in a lengthy campaign of parental alienation.

The father sought costs of $213,436.28 on a full indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle.

The mother argued for a reduced quantum of $97,465.00, citing her financial circumstances.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs but awarded substantial indemnity costs of $175,000.00, noting the mother's inappropriate conduct as a litigant, including violating a previous consent order and surreptitiously recording access exchanges.

The applicants, developers in the City of Kingston, challenged the validity of the City's Impost By-law, which imposed fees for the capital costs of water and sewer infrastructure.

The applicants argued that the City was required to impose such fees under the Development Charges Act, 1997, and that the Impost By-law conflicted with that Act, was ultra vires the Municipal Act, 2001, and was discriminatory.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the legislative framework allowed the City to enact the Impost By-law under the Municipal Act, 2001, that there was no conflict with the Development Charges Act, 1997, and that the by-law was neither ultra vires nor discriminatory.

Following the death of their mother, three brothers brought an action on behalf of her estate against their fourth brother, alleging he misappropriated significant estate assets including real estate, securities, and gold through joint accounts and transfers.

The defendant claimed the assets were inter vivos gifts.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the presumption of resulting trust and found the defendant failed to rebut it, noting the mother's lack of capacity due to dementia and significant inconsistencies in the defendant's evidence.

The court granted a tracing order, awarding the estate a 69.5% interest in a property purchased by the defendant with the misappropriated funds, plus monetary damages.

The defendant's counterclaims for improvident sale of the family home and return of TFSA funds were dismissed.