Shin Doi

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce a family law settlement agreement that the self-represented respondent father accepted via email.

The father opposed the motion, arguing he signed under duress and that the agreement was one-sided.

The court found that the father's email stating 'Accept in full' constituted valid acceptance under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules, and that consideration was exchanged when funds were released from the matrimonial home sale.

The court rejected the father's claim of duress, finding no evidence of coercion or illegitimate pressure, and concluded that both parties would be prejudiced if the agreement were not enforced.

The motion was granted and the settlement agreement was enforced.

The defendant municipality brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff former city councillor's statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The plaintiff had sued for constructive dismissal, alleging she was forced to resign due to workplace harassment by another councillor.

The court found that under municipal law and the statutory framework, an elected city councillor is not an employee of the municipality.

Consequently, the employment-based claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and were struck, with leave granted to amend the pleadings.

The defendants, including CTV and several journalists, brought a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action arising from a W5 investigative report on dog sledding operations.

The court granted the motion, finding that the expression related to a matter of public interest.

The plaintiff failed to establish that its defamation claim had substantial merit, as the impugned broadcasts did not identify the plaintiff or lacked essential elements of defamation.

Furthermore, the plaintiff could not show that the defendants lacked valid defences of justification, fair comment, and responsible communication, nor that the harm suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The applicants, a First Nation and its former Chief, brought an application under Rule 14.05(3)(d) and (h) seeking declaratory relief regarding the interpretation of the Environmental Assessment Act and the Crown's Duty to Consult and Accommodate.

The application arose in the context of the proposed Marten Falls Community Access Road in the Ring of Fire region.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to rewrite legislation or provide a de facto reference on how the Crown should discharge its duty in the future without a live factual dispute.

The court held that the application did not raise a justiciable issue and was not properly brought under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff commenced two actions (in 2018 and 2022) against the Crown and the Firearms Safety Education Service of Ontario containing overlapping allegations regarding the suspension of his firearms instructor license.

The defendants brought motions to strike or stay the 2022 Action.

The court struck the 2022 Action against the Crown for failure to provide statutory notice, struck the claims based on 2017 and 2018 events as statute-barred, and stayed the remaining duplicative claims as an abuse of process.

The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the 2018 Action to incorporate the claims from the 2022 Action.