Stephen T. Bale

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision barring him from proceeding with an appeal for catastrophic injury benefits due to his failure to attend an insurer's medical examination and provide documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy through a statutory right of appeal under the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act.

The court held that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify bypassing the statutory appeal process in favour of judicial review.

The applicant pharmacy owner sought a declaration and injunction to enforce a non-competition clause against a former pharmacist employee who resigned and began working at a nearby pharmacy.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the non-competition clause was unenforceable because its description of prohibited activities was both ambiguous and overly broad, extending beyond what was reasonably necessary to protect the employer's proprietary interests.

The third party in an equipment rental dispute brought three preliminary motions before trial: to permanently stay the third party claim due to late disclosure of an alleged Mary Carter agreement, to permit calling an expert witness, and to permit cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness despite not defending the main action.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the agreed statement of facts was disclosed in a timely manner.

The court allowed the motions to call the expert witness and to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness, finding interference with the expert's retainer and relevance of the plaintiff's evidence to the third party's defence.

The appellant, a non-party principal of the plaintiff construction company, appealed a trial judge's order making him jointly and severally liable for approximately $579,000 in costs.

The trial judge found the appellant had engaged in gross misconduct, including lying under oath and forging documents to support an inflated construction lien claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly exercised her inherent jurisdiction to award costs against a non-party whose conduct amounted to an abuse of process.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for class certification against an auditor.

The motion judge found that the pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action because settled law on auditor liability precluded a finding that the auditor owed a duty of care to unitholders of the funds.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding that the statement of claim did not plead material facts establishing an undertaking by the auditor to the unitholders for their individual investment decisions, which is required to establish sufficient proximity for a claim of pure economic loss.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim under rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs, a home builder and its principal, alleged various torts and statutory breaches against Tarion Warranty Corporation, several municipalities, CTV News, and a public health authority, claiming hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

The court found the 40-page statement of claim to be unwieldy, repetitive, and deficient in pleading the necessary material facts for the alleged causes of action.

The court struck the statement of claim in its entirety, dismissing claims based on criminal statutes, the Competition Act, the Security of Information Act, intentional interference with economic relations, discrimination, and harassment without leave to amend.

However, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to move for an order permitting them to deliver a fresh statement of claim restricted to specific causes of action, including injurious falsehood, inducing breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and negligence, provided they can properly plead the required material facts.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $18,000 to each of the responding municipalities.

The plaintiff, Drew Reid, brought a motion seeking to quash the enforcement of Ganaraska Credit Union Ltd.'s mortgage, an accounting and return of personal possessions, and a finding of contempt against the defendants for allegedly defying a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) lien.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mortgage sale was not a "fire sale" and was for fair value, the CRA lien did not claim priority over the mortgages, and the plaintiff's attempts to stay enforcement lacked merit, especially as the property had already been sold.

The court also clarified that a CRA lien is not a court order for the purposes of a contempt finding.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a December 21, 2020 decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the respondents did not file a cost summary.

The applicant and respondent both sought leave to appeal separate costs orders made by Nakonechny J. and Diamond J. The Divisional Court waived any technical defects in the motions and dismissed both motions for leave to appeal, with no order as to costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Dietrich J. dated December 19, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Parayeski J. dated September 23, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $2,126.89.

The applicant brought an application for the delivery of a dog pursuant to the deceased's will.

The will provided a legacy of $100,000 for the care of the dog to the individual who assumed its care and residence.

The estate trustee had placed the dog with her son after the applicant allegedly declined to take it.

The court reviewed text messages between the parties and concluded that the applicant did not intend to be the guardian of the dog in accordance with the will.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a class action against the Government of Ontario for damages resulting from the early termination of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot project.

The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, breach of undertaking, negligence, breach of public law duty, and breach of section 7 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the relationship was not contractual, the government's decision to cancel the program was a core policy decision protected by common law and statutory immunity, and there is no constitutional right to the continuation of a government program.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose after striking two victims with a broken beer bottle during a wedding reception altercation.

The Crown sought a sentence between the mid and high ranges, while the defence sought a suspended sentence.

The court found the offence fell within the mid-range of sentences for such assaults and sentenced the offender to two years less a day in custody, followed by two years of probation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, alleging the defendants failed to satisfactorily complete earth works and grading on their property as required by the minutes of settlement.

The parties relied on conflicting unsworn engineering reports regarding the adequacy of a buffer zone, berms, and general conformance with the grading plan.

The court found it could not resolve the factual disputes on the written record alone.

The court withheld its final order for 45 days to allow the parties to make submissions on holding a mini-trial or ordering the experts to meet and confer under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The offender was convicted of trafficking in fentanyl, using forged fentanyl patches, and obtaining merchandise by false pretence.

He participated in a scheme where he returned forged patches to a pharmacy under Ontario's patch-for-patch program to obtain new fentanyl patches, which he then trafficked.

The court rejected the argument that the trafficking was merely sharing among prescription holders, finding it to be a sophisticated commercial operation.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the extreme dangers of fentanyl, the court sentenced the offender to 26 months in penitentiary for trafficking, with concurrent 18-month sentences for the forgery and false pretence offences.

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual interference arising from allegations that he touched a thirteen-year-old household member's breasts and vagina during apparent horseplay.

The appeal alleged misapprehension of the evidence, improper use of blanket-lifting evidence, and error in concluding the conduct met the elements of sexual interference and sexual assault.

The court held the trial judge's inference about visibility during the touching was supported by the evidence, the blanket-lifting incident was admissible and relevant to sexual purpose, and the touching was properly found to be sexual in nature.

The conviction appeal was dismissed and the custodial sentence was ordered into effect.

Edward Pengelly applied for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his security re-classification and transfer to a medium-security institution.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a preliminary motion challenging the Superior Court's jurisdiction, arguing that the Federal Court was the sole remedy.

The court dismissed the Attorney General's jurisdictional challenge, affirming the Superior Court's jurisdiction over habeas corpus applications in the prison context, distinguishing the case from precedents concerning mootness or challenges to conditions of detention rather than the lawfulness of detention itself.