Sean Christopher Flaherty

The moving party, the successful bidder on a police towing services Request for Proposal, brought a motion to be added as a party to an application for judicial review challenging the RFP.

The applicants conceded the moving party should participate but argued it should bear its own costs.

The court found the moving party was an essential party with a direct economic interest and relevant evidence to offer regarding allegations of collusion.

The motion was granted, and the moving party was added as a party respondent with full exposure and entitlement to costs.

Following a successful appeal, the parties were unable to resolve the costs of the motion below.

The Court of Appeal fixed the costs of the motion below at $4,500 in favour of the appellants, payable out of the proceeds of the sale of the property, noting that much of the time claimed related to necessary housekeeping matters regarding the sale.

The appellants appealed an order setting aside a commercial lease as fraudulent under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and directing the sale of a property free of the lease.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in deciding the fraudulent conveyance issue without proper notice or a trial, as the debtor's intent raised a triable issue.

Furthermore, the court held that the term 'encumbrancers' in the standard form order for partition and sale encompasses both existing and subsequent encumbrancers, meaning the property could not be sold free of the subsequently registered lease without the encumbrancer's consent.

The applicant, an EMS Manager with bipolar disorder, exhibited erratic and inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, including frivolous spending, insubordination, and verbal abuse towards staff.

After disclosing his disability and taking a medical leave, the respondent investigated his conduct but failed to consider whether the behaviour was disability-related.

In 2011, the respondent decided never to return the applicant to his managerial position.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that while the initial refusal to return him to work pending investigation was not discriminatory, the permanent removal from his position was discriminatory.

The respondent failed its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate the applicant's disability.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant's reinstatement subject to medical clearance and workplace restoration conditions, along with lost income and $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The appellant sought to enforce a $300,000 promissory note and personal guarantees against the respondents after their family company went bankrupt.

The trial judge found the family members were not liable based on the defence of non est factum.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed this finding, holding that the family members were careless in signing the guarantee without reading it and that there was no misrepresentation.

The respondents' cross-appeal alleging lack of consideration was dismissed.

The appeal was allowed and judgment was granted against the family members.

The appellants, representing members of a church congregation who voted to leave the Anglican Diocese of Huron due to theological differences, appealed a trial decision declaring that the diocese held the church property and a charitable foundation in trust for the static parish, not the departing members.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that 'parish' refers to a static entity that continues in perpetuity regardless of changes in membership, and that the departing members could not take the property with them.

The Court also allowed the diocese's cross-appeal on costs, finding that the costs judge erred in ordering each party to bear its own costs to promote harmony, and awarded $100,000 in costs to the diocese.

The applicant brought a motion to stay a Licence Appeal Tribunal hearing regarding the revocation of his motor vehicle dealer registration, pending the outcome of his civil lawsuit against the Registrar in the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant argued that the civil action, which alleged bad faith and ulterior motives by the Registrar, could render the Tribunal hearing moot and that proceeding would cause irreparable harm through unrecoverable legal costs and the risk of inconsistent findings.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant would not suffer irreparable harm.

Furthermore, the balance of inconvenience favoured proceeding with the hearing, as the public interest in timely regulatory oversight under consumer protection legislation outweighed the low risk of inconsistent findings.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant's expert witness was unable to testify because he could not access the applicant's medical records, which were held by third parties.

The hearing was adjourned.

To ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of the matter, the Tribunal ordered the London Health Sciences Centre and the respondent's disability insurer to produce the applicant's medical records to the applicant's counsel prior to the rescheduled hearing date.

The appellant appealed the decision of the motion judge denying an order for an oppression remedy under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision, noting she considered the full record, the case law, and properly exercised her discretion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.