Superior Court of Justice

The plaintiff brought an ex parte motion for an order validating and substituting service on the defendants, Guyana National Newspapers Limited (GNNL) and Mark Anthony Devonish, due to the impracticality of personal service amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted the order, dispensing with service of the motion itself and ordering substituted service by email for all future pleadings and documents.

No costs were ordered.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application to remove the respondent as estate trustee, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that the applicant's conduct throughout the litigation, which included making demonstrably untrue statements and unfounded allegations of fraud, was reprehensible and worthy of sanction.

The court declined to order costs payable out of the estate, applying the 'loser pays' principle.

The respondent was awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale, fixed at $48,975.94, payable by the applicant from her share of the estate.

The Receiver and Monitor sought court approval for the sale of geothermal assets and an order compelling the assignment of a long-term lease (the "Berm Lease") to the purchaser.

King Towns North Inc. (KTNI), the landlord under the Berm Lease, opposed the assignment order, arguing that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) does not grant receivers statutory authority to compel assignments and that the assignment was inappropriate given the nominal rent and a lease clause allowing unreasonable withholding of consent.

The court found jurisdiction to grant the assignment order under BIA s. 243(1)(c) in conjunction with s. 100 of the Courts of Justice Act, or alternatively, through its inherent jurisdiction, emphasizing a purposive approach to Canadian insolvency laws.

The court concluded that the assignment was appropriate, as it was critical to the transaction, the assignee's financial obligations were nominal, and KTNI's allocation entitlements could be addressed at a later date.

The sale transaction and a sealing order for confidential information were also approved.

The plaintiff, a senior executive, was terminated without cause after nearly four years of employment.

He brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal damages.

The court found the termination clause in his employment contract unenforceable because it had the potential to provide less than the minimum termination and severance pay required under the Canada Labour Code.

The court awarded eight months' pay in lieu of notice, finding the plaintiff held a significant managerial role.

The court also awarded damages for a discretionary bonus for 2017 and the notice period, as it was an integral part of his compensation, but dismissed claims for unused vacation and statutory holiday pay.

The respondent husband brought a motion to transfer a family law application for spousal support and equalization from Kingston to North Bay.

The applicant wife had properly commenced the application in Kingston, where she resided.

The court applied the test for transferring venue, requiring the moving party to demonstrate that the proposed venue is substantially better.

The court found that the husband's reasons, including his business location, family property, and childcare responsibilities, did not outweigh the significant difficulty a transfer would pose for the wife.

The motion was dismissed.

The moving party (defendant) sought summary judgment dismissing the responding party's (plaintiff's) action for a 50% interest in a residential property, or alternatively, an order for partition and sale.

The parties are sisters.

The moving party is the sole registered owner, but the responding party resides in the property and claims a beneficial interest based on an alleged written agreement.

The court found the alleged agreement to be invalid and likely forged, relying on expert handwriting evidence and factual inconsistencies.

However, the court concluded a trial was necessary to determine if the responding party had any monetary claim to the property's proceeds based on her financial contributions.

The court ordered the property sold, with 50% of the net proceeds paid to the moving party and the remaining 50% paid into court pending trial.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) regarding a jointly purchased investment property.

The applicants argued that the motion had already been settled via email correspondence between counsel.

The court found that the email exchange constituted a binding settlement agreement to consent to the CPL order while reserving costs.

Alternatively, the court held that a CPL was justified on the merits, as there was a triable issue regarding the parties' respective interests in the property.

The motion was granted.

The respondent landlords moved to quash the appellant tenants' appeal from Landlord Tenant Board decisions.

The motion was based on the appeal being out of time (dismissed by a prior judge) and lacking merit as it raised no question of law, and constituted an abuse of process due to the tenants' failure to pay rent and lack of good faith.

The court found no question of law and concluded the appeal was an abuse of process, quashing the appeal and vacating the stay of proceedings.

Mr. Thakur pleaded guilty to one count of theft under $5,000.

The offence involved him sharing $5,000 of DRPS money, obtained by a co-accused police officer (Husen Aswat) through a sting operation, to purchase a fishing boat.

The Crown sought a conditional discharge with probation, while the defence sought an absolute discharge.

The court considered Mr. Thakur's exemplary career as a police officer, his undiagnosed PTSD and depression at the time of the offence, and the significant collateral consequences he suffered, including the loss of his career and public stigma.

Despite his status as a police officer being an aggravating factor, the court found that the unique circumstances, including his mental health and the profound impact of the proceedings, warranted an absolute discharge, concluding that probation would serve no meaningful purpose and offend the principle of proportionality.

The defendant brought a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) granted ex parte to the plaintiffs over a condominium redevelopment property.

The defendant argued the plaintiffs failed to make full and fair disclosure by omitting a standard form agreement of purchase and sale and relevant emails.

The court found the plaintiffs complied with their disclosure obligations, as the inclusion of the standard agreement was a triable issue rather than a deliberate omission.

The court also found the property was unique to the plaintiffs under the Dhunna factors.

The motion to discharge the CPL was dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved for approval of a settlement agreement and class counsel fees in a product liability class action concerning defective Takata airbags installed in Honda vehicles.

The settlement provided a recall remedy, reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, and an outreach program, though its total monetary value was not readily calculable.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant safety risks addressed.

The court also approved class counsel's fee request of $5,750,000 plus disbursements, finding it reasonable given the risks undertaken and the results achieved.

The applicant, awaiting trial for first-degree murder and firearms offences, sought bail based on changed circumstances since his initial detention order.

The court found that trial delays due to the Covid-19 pandemic, a recent outbreak at the detention centre, a strengthened release plan, and a pre-trial ruling strengthening the Crown's case constituted material changes warranting a fresh analysis.

However, after weighing the secondary and tertiary grounds under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code, including the applicant's repeated possession of loaded handguns and the strength of the Crown's case, the court concluded that detention remained necessary and dismissed the application.

The defendants, former legal counsel for the plaintiff, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's professional negligence action.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants breached the standard of care during an underlying personal injury trial by failing to advise him about an updated loss of income report and abandoning his future loss of income claim without instructions.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The evidence demonstrated the plaintiff was aware of the supplementary report, understood the significant risks of proceeding to trial, and insisted on proceeding despite his lawyers' advice to settle or dismiss the action without costs.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Revised Amended Statement of Claim for non-compliance with the rules of pleading.

The court found that many paragraphs contained evidence or irrelevant allegations rather than material facts.

Instead of striking the pleading without leave to amend, the court conducted a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis, striking the non-compliant paragraphs and assembling the remaining compliant paragraphs into a new Amended Statement of Claim, which the plaintiff was granted leave to deliver.

The moving party sought to validate her marriage to an elderly man with worsening dementia, which was challenged by the responding party, the man's son.

The son had previously obtained a guardianship order in the wife's absence and alleged the marriage was predatory.

The court found that the son failed to adduce sufficient evidence that his father lacked the capacity to marry on the date of the wedding.

The court placed little weight on retrospective expert assessments and relied on direct evidence of the couple's long-term relationship and the father's understanding of the marriage.

The marriage was declared valid, and the son was ordered to pay $50,000 in full indemnity costs due to his egregious conduct.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary an interim child support order, arguing his income had decreased after he accepted a promotion to a managerial position that did not offer overtime pay.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing the father was intentionally under-employed to avoid paying child support.

The court found that the father's new position was a legitimate career advancement that increased his base salary, and he was not intentionally under-employed.

The court granted the motion to vary child support based on the father's reduced income, resulting in a set-off amount payable by the mother.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking payment on two defaulted charges/mortgages and possession of the secured properties.

The defendants had defaulted on payments and failed to pay out the charges at maturity.

One defendant did not appear, and the other appeared but filed no materials, arguing only that refinancing was difficult due to marital separation and lack of cooperation from the co-owner.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs for the outstanding debt and possession of both properties, and assessed costs.

The court clarified that obtaining a Writ of Possession for a residential rental unit requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel of record, arguing that counsel's ongoing business relationship with the plaintiff would inevitably make him a witness regarding the plaintiff's loss of income claim.

The court applied the factors from Essa (Township) v. Guergis and found the motion premature, as the plaintiff's income loss claim was currently based solely on tax returns.

The motion was dismissed with leave to renew if the plaintiff pursues an income loss claim inconsistent with his tax returns.

The defendant hospital brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff former employee's action for damages arising from alleged workplace harassment, defamation, and other torts.

The court found that the majority of the claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under the collective agreement and dismissed them.

The remaining claims for threats and poisoning were struck for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, while the plaintiff was granted leave to amend the pleadings regarding the defamation claims.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice due to trial delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The trial, arising from a 2012 motor vehicle accident, had been adjourned multiple times and was scheduled for February 2021 in London, Ontario.

Given the suspension of civil jury trials, the elderly plaintiff's failing health, and the financial hardship of the co-plaintiff, the court found that further delay would prejudice the plaintiffs.

The court conditionally struck the jury notice, ordering the trial to proceed judge-alone unless jury trials resumed by the trial date.