Sean F. Dunphy

The applicant condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment seeking immediate vacant possession of the respondent's unit to sell it and satisfy a lien of over $20,000, which originated from legal fees for a 'cease and desist' letter regarding noise complaints.

The respondent, a self-represented unit owner, disputed the fees and requested a stay to pursue mediation.

The court dismissed the motion and stayed the proceeding, finding that the Condominium Act mandates mediation and arbitration for such disputes, and criticized the corporation for escalating the matter instead of pursuing informal resolution.

The self-represented plaintiff appealed two interlocutory orders of a Master: one requiring her to post security for costs on the basis that her action was frivolous and vexatious, and another ordering her to pay costs of that motion.

The plaintiff engaged in extensive delay tactics, including failing to file her appeal record and seeking multiple adjournments.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeals, finding no error of law, misapprehension of evidence, or reasonable apprehension of bias by the Master.

The court awarded the respondents costs of the appeals on a substantial indemnity basis due to the plaintiff's obstructive conduct.

The defendants jointly brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's slip and fall personal injury claim.

The plaintiff slipped on ice while attempting to enter a bridal store.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the factual record was highly disputed and the electronic materials filed by the parties were voluminous, unorganized, and lacked necessary hyperlinks.

The court emphasized that summary judgment is inappropriate when the record does not allow the judge to confidently make findings of fact, and strongly criticized the profession's failure to properly prepare electronic motion records.

The plaintiff parents sought an ex parte Mareva injunction to freeze funds they had previously gifted to their adult daughter, alleging she was dissipating the funds under the negative influence of her boyfriend.

The parents claimed the funds were held in trust or subject to a binding agreement restricting their use.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried or irreparable harm.

The court held that the daughter was the sole legal and beneficial owner of the funds upon turning 18, precluding the existence of a trust, and that any subsequent agreement regarding the funds' use was not legally binding or would only yield nominal damages.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the self-represented plaintiff's claim regarding an assault at a church drop-in centre.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the voluminous and poorly organized electronic record made it impossible to confidently resolve the significant factual disputes between the parties.

Applying Hryniak, the court issued directions for a swift summary trial to resolve the matter on the merits.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants after they failed to defend the action.

The plaintiff had transferred $607,000 to the defendants in trust for an immigration investment scheme, but the funds were misappropriated.

The court granted judgment against the individual defendant and one corporate defendant for the return of the funds, finding they breached their fiduciary duties and acted dishonestly.

The court also granted a constructive trust over the funds and awarded substantial indemnity costs, but declined to award punitive damages.

The plaintiff, a 61-year-old commission salesperson with 19.5 months of service, was terminated without cause shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic.

He brought a motion seeking 10 months of reasonable notice, while the defendant employer argued for two months.

The court assessed the relevant factors, noting the plaintiff's short tenure, non-managerial role, and the lack of evidence that his age or the pandemic significantly hindered his job search during the applicable notice period.

The court awarded a reasonable notice period of 2.5 months.

The plaintiff, a 61-year-old finance manager with nine months of service, was terminated without cause.

He brought a motion for summary judgment to determine the appropriate period of reasonable notice.

The court applied the Bardal factors, noting the plaintiff's short service, performance-based compensation, and the robust job market prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court held that the pandemic, being a subsequent event, should not impact the notice period calculation and awarded two months' reasonable notice.

The moving party solicitor opposed the confirmation of an Assessment Officer's report which reduced his accounts from $20,134.22 to $12,354.22.

The solicitor argued the Assessment Officer disregarded the written retainer agreement and improperly relied on parol evidence of a fee estimate.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Assessment Officer made no errors of law, properly considered the retainer agreement, and correctly held the solicitor to the requirement of keeping clients reasonably informed about fees relative to prior estimates.

The plaintiff moved in writing for default judgment seeking possession of a property and payment of $313,544.95.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the statement of claim failed to plead facts establishing a contractual nexus between the plaintiff and the defendant, or that any money was actually advanced.

Furthermore, the affidavit in support failed to attach the correct contractual documents and provided no foundation for the various fees and penalties claimed.

The applicant title insurance company sought an order to rectify title due to an error in a 2016 mortgage where the wrong institution was named as mortgagee.

The borrower had subsequently transferred the property to himself and his spouse, and later passed away.

The court found a compelling case for an equitable mortgage but declined to order rectification without hearing from others who may have acquired an interest in the land.

The court authorized the registration of a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The applicants sought an order for the partition and sale of a residential property co-owned with the respondent.

Due to the parties' inability to cooperate, the applicants requested the appointment of a third-party sales officer.

The court granted the application, appointing RSM to conduct the sale process to avoid further disputes and legal costs.

Costs of $15,833 were ordered to be paid to the applicants from the proceeds of the sale, effectively spreading the cost among all four owners.

The plaintiffs, a group of unionized and non-unionized hospital employees, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant employer from enforcing a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy that threatened termination of employment.

The court dissolved a previously granted interim injunction.

For the unionized employees, the court held that the essential character of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labour arbitration process under the collective agreements, and declined to exercise its residual jurisdiction to grant interim relief where the unions had carriage of the grievances and had not sought such relief.

For the non-unionized employees, the court found no irreparable harm, as monetary damages would be an adequate remedy if their employment was wrongfully terminated.

The plaintiff appealed a decision of an Associate Justice refusing to grant a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a residential property.

The plaintiff, who had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with the defaulting mortgagor, argued the Associate Justice breached natural justice by relying on a post-hearing Google search and making observations about building permits without allowing submissions.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the grounds of appeal were meritorious, they were not material.

The CPL could not stay the enforcement rights of the prior-ranking mortgagee, who had commenced power of sale proceedings before the agreement was signed.

The plaintiffs, employees of the University Health Network, brought an urgent motion for an interim injunction to prevent their termination for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine.

The defendants raised significant jurisdictional issues, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over unionized employees.

The court granted a short-term interim order preserving the status quo for the named plaintiffs and specific individuals until a proper hearing on the jurisdictional issues could take place, noting the potential for irreparable harm if the employees were compelled to take the vaccine against their will.

The plaintiff lender brought a motion for summary judgment against a lawyer who failed to honour an irrevocable direction to pay settlement funds to repay a litigation loan.

The lawyer had acknowledged the direction but mistakenly paid the settlement funds directly to his client.

The court found the lawyer personally liable for breaching his covenant, treating it akin to a solicitor's undertaking.

The plaintiff was awarded the principal amount plus contractual interest up to the date of the breach, and statutory prejudgment interest thereafter.

The claim against the lawyer's LLP was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to shut down or restrict a competing deli opened by two former long-term employees.

The plaintiff argued the employees were fiduciaries.

The court found the employees were managers but not fiduciaries, as they lacked strategic authority and the employer was not peculiarly vulnerable to their departure.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the defendants and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of a motion brought by the purchaser against the Receiver for alleged breaches of an Asset Purchase Agreement, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the Receiver.

The Receiver claimed $134,188.17, while the purchaser argued for $60,000.

The court deducted the Receiver's own non-legal professional staff time and reduced the overall amount based on proportionality and reasonableness, fixing the costs payable by the purchaser at $105,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, arguing that the termination provisions in her employment agreement violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) and were therefore void.

The court found that the plaintiff, a sophisticated employee who received independent legal advice, entered into an agreement that explicitly incorporated ESA minimums and provided greater benefits in certain circumstances.

The court held that the 'just cause' provision did not contravene the ESA and dismissed the action against the parent and affiliate companies, finding no joint employer relationship.

The termination provisions were upheld as valid.

The plaintiffs sought to have their statement of claim treated as issued on June 25, 2019, the day the limitation period expired under the Insurance Act.

A paralegal had presented the claim to a court clerk before the 5:00 pm closing time, but the clerk refused to process it, stating his computer was shutting down.

The court found that the plaintiffs did all that was required to commence the proceeding in time and that the failure was solely due to court staff.

Exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the court granted a nunc pro tunc order declaring the claim issued on June 25, 2019, and dismissed the defendants' summary judgment motion.