S. M. Stevenson

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from allegedly passing off their gym business as affiliated with the plaintiffs' boxing and fitness business.

They also sought declarations regarding an alleged website sabotage, orders compelling third‑party production relating to a domain name, and further document production.

Applying the three‑part test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR‑MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), the court found there was a serious issue to be tried but concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The court held that the plaintiffs’ evidentiary record relied heavily on hearsay from a marketing consultant rather than affidavits from individuals with direct knowledge.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, including the requests for declaratory and production relief.

The defendants brought a motion to strike a self-represented plaintiff’s claim arising from repeated unsuccessful attempts to obtain a family medicine residency position.

The plaintiff alleged negligence, bad faith, unequal treatment, and Charter violations after being denied interviews and admission to residency programs.

The court held the action was an attempt to re‑litigate issues previously determined in multiple proceedings and was barred by cause of action estoppel and abuse of process.

The pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action and failed to establish viable claims in negligence, contract, or discrimination.

The court also held that academic admissions decisions fall within universities’ broad discretion and are reviewable, if at all, by judicial review rather than civil action.

Following reasons granting an interlocutory injunction in a dispute involving alleged breach of fiduciary duties and misuse of confidential information, the court addressed disagreements over the form of the order and costs.

The plaintiff sought additional wording expanding the scope of entities and confidential technology referenced in the injunction, which the court refused because the relief had not been sought in the motion record or oral submissions.

The court required that the original wording of the injunction regarding preservation of confidential information be maintained.

A stay of the data‑imaging paragraph was granted for two defendants pending determination of their motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

Costs of the interlocutory injunction motion were ordered to be in the cause.

The defendant appealed a master’s order refusing to compel answers to discovery refusals and production of additional financial documents in a fatal motor vehicle accident action involving dependency claims under the Family Law Act.

The appeal challenged the master’s refusal to require the surviving spouse to answer questions about post‑accident income and dividends and to produce corporate and financial documents sought by the defendant’s expert.

The court held that the master applied the correct relevance test and did not commit a palpable and overriding error in determining that questions relating to post‑accident investment income were irrelevant to the dependency claim in the circumstances of a single‑income household.

The court also upheld the master’s discretionary decision to deny several production requests as premature or unnecessary, particularly where the materials had not been pursued during discovery or involved non‑parties.

The appeal was dismissed and the discovery rulings were upheld.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiff’s Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim alleging fraud, negligence, defamation, breach of contract, and numerous other causes of action arising from a physician assessment and subsequent complaints to the professional regulator and review board.

The court held that the pleading failed to set out material facts supporting the alleged causes of action and instead consisted largely of bald allegations and inflammatory assertions.

Claims relying on materials from professional discipline proceedings were barred by s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, and the regulatory bodies and their officials were protected by statutory immunity absent properly pleaded bad faith.

The court also found the claim constituted an improper collateral attack on the outcomes of the regulatory complaint and review process.

The entire claim was struck without leave to amend.

Following a motion concerning jurisdiction, the successful party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $17,178.02, alleging misconduct by the opposing parties and excessive motion preparation requirements.

The responding parties argued that costs should be limited to the jurisdiction issue and capped at a substantially lower amount.

Applying the principles governing costs and the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that substantial indemnity was not justified and that the claimed costs were excessive and duplicative.

The court fixed costs at a reduced amount it considered fair and reasonable for an unsuccessful party to have expected to pay.

Following a motor vehicle accident involving an uninsured driver who struck a pedestrian, the driver and her spouse sought a declaration that the spouse’s automobile insurer was required to indemnify them after the spouse added the vehicle to his existing policy the day after the accident.

The insurer alleged the addition was obtained through intentional misrepresentation, including false statements about ownership and the failure to disclose the prior accident.

The court found the spouse had no insurable interest in the vehicle and that both individuals engaged in a scheme to deceive the insurer by backdating coverage and concealing material facts.

Under s. 233 of the Insurance Act, their right to recover indemnity was forfeited due to fraud and false statements.

The action was dismissed and the uninsured motorist insurer was required to respond to the personal injury claim.

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction and preservation order against former employees who started a competing realty tax business, alleging breach of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements.

The court found a serious issue to be tried but concluded the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any lost sales or market share could be compensated in damages.

The balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The court dismissed the motion for an interim injunction and forensic inspection but ordered the defendants to preserve any documents and devices belonging to the plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court over a dispute concerning alleged misappropriation of assets from a family business operating in China.

The plaintiff alleged that corporate assets and funds had been transferred from China to Ontario and sought an accounting and compensation.

Applying the presumptive connecting factors framework from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that the defendants’ domicile in Ontario established a prima facie basis for jurisdiction.

The defendants failed to rebut the presumption or demonstrate that China was a clearly more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The court therefore held that Ontario had jurisdiction and adjourned the defendants’ summary judgment motion.

The defendant physician appealed an order of a master compelling him to attend an examination under Rule 39.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure in advance of a motion to strike the statement of claim in a medical negligence action.

The defendant argued that the motion to strike raised only legal issues concerning pleading sufficiency and therefore evidence was irrelevant.

The court held that once the defendant asserted in his factum that he was unable to respond to the allegations, his ability to respond became a relevant issue on the Rule 25.11 motion.

The plaintiffs therefore had a prima facie right to examine him on that issue under Rule 39.03(1).

The court found no error in the master’s reasoning and upheld both the examination order and the costs award.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recognize and enforce a $99,925 Maryland judgment obtained against the defendant in 2004.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing the action was time-barred under the Limitations Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issue of discoverability—specifically when the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the defendant resided in Ontario—raised genuine issues of material fact and credibility that required a trial.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 54.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to oppose confirmation of a report and certificate of assessment that awarded legal fees to a solicitor for representation before the Ontario Review Board.

The dispute centred on whether the assessment officer had jurisdiction to assess the solicitor’s accounts where the existence of a retainer and responsibility for payment—between Legal Aid Ontario and the Attorney General—were contested.

The court held that a bona fide dispute regarding the retainer deprived the assessment officer of jurisdiction under the Solicitors Act to proceed with the assessment.

As the retainer issue had not been resolved through civil litigation, the assessment process was improper.

The report and certificate of assessment were therefore set aside.

The applicant brought a corporate law application under multiple provisions of the Business Corporations Act, the Courts of Justice Act, and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

In a supplemental endorsement, the court addressed the timing of service of the Notice of Application following an earlier endorsement.

The court amended paragraph 2 of the prior endorsement and extended the time for service of the Notice of Application by 90 days from September 1, 2012.

The order was made in circumstances where the respondents did not appear.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion to strike a negligence claim commenced by a former criminal client.

The plaintiff alleged negligent representation during his criminal trial, which resulted in convictions for mischief and forcible confinement followed by an absolute discharge.

The court held that the civil action constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the criminal convictions because proving causation would require relitigating the criminal trial and determining whether the plaintiff would have been acquitted.

Applying abuse of process principles articulated in Supreme Court and appellate jurisprudence, the court found the action undermined the integrity and finality of the adjudicative process.

The claim was dismissed in its entirety and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of an amended statement of claim against a corporate officer personally.

The plaintiff sought damages related to her termination of employment and pleaded tort claims for intentional or negligent infliction of nervous shock and punitive damages against the officer.

The court held it was plain and obvious that the tort claims had no reasonable prospect of success because allowing them would circumvent contractual exclusion and entire agreement clauses contained in the employment agreement.

Applying principles from Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence concerning limitation of liability clauses and privity, the court found the exclusion clause extended to the officer acting within the scope of employment.

The claims against the officer were struck in their entirety without leave to amend.

Following reasons dismissing most aspects of a motion to strike, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The responding parties were largely successful on the motion, though one claim for unjust enrichment was struck with leave to amend.

The court applied Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles from Boucher regarding fair and reasonable costs.

While the successful parties sought substantial indemnity or partial indemnity costs exceeding $19,000, the court found those amounts excessive for a short motion and fixed costs at $11,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

A natural gas distributor applied to quash a municipal by-law imposing a pavement degradation fee on entities excavating city roads, arguing the fee was ultra vires under the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and O. Reg. 595/06.

The applicant contended the fee impermissibly targeted gas distributors, was unrelated to permit issuance costs, and improperly related to the transportation of natural resources.

The municipality argued the fee formed part of a broader regulatory scheme governing road excavation and utility cuts and was authorized as a permit-related charge.

The court applied a broad and purposive interpretation of municipal powers and held the fee was reasonably connected to a regulatory scheme managing road infrastructure and excavation permits.

The application to quash the by-law was dismissed.

A real estate brokerage sought payment of commission following the sale of a commercial property after termination of a listing agreement.

The plaintiff argued the listing had not been properly terminated and that the purchaser fell within the referral and holdover provisions of the agreement.

The court found the defendant validly terminated the listing agreement by written notice in accordance with its terms and that no oral rescission occurred.

The purchaser was neither introduced to nor shown the property by the brokerage during the listing period and negotiations began only after the listing had ended.

The court held the brokerage was not entitled to commission and dismissed the claim.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiffs’ statement of claim on the basis that the action was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs alleged that damage to their home occurred after a technician installation, but that significant damage only manifested during a later flooding event.

The court held that the limitation issue involved questions of discoverability and factual context that could not be determined at this preliminary stage.

However, the court found that the plaintiffs’ alternative claim for public nuisance failed to plead the essential elements of the tort, including interference with a public right affecting a substantial number of people.

The public nuisance claim was struck, but the remainder of the action was permitted to proceed.