Susan E. Greer

A residential property owner brought an action against neighbouring commercial businesses alleging obstruction and misuse of a shared right-of-way and seeking damages and injunctive relief.

The defendants denied interference and counterclaimed for damages and an injunction based on alleged harassment and interference with their business operations.

The court reviewed the scope of easement rights, including the principle that a right to pass and repass does not inherently include a right to park, and considered whether commercial delivery and parking activities unreasonably interfered with other users’ rights.

The court found that certain vehicle parking and delivery practices had at times unreasonably obstructed access but that many issues had improved over time.

A limited injunction regulating parking, delivery vehicle use, and positioning of security lights and cameras was granted, while all claims for damages and the defendants’ counterclaim were dismissed.

The plaintiffs, franchisees of a pizza franchise, brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that they validly rescinded their franchise agreement due to the franchisor's failure to provide a proper disclosure document under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The court found numerous material deficiencies in the purported disclosure document, including inadequate financial statements, missing certificates, and failure to provide the document as a single bound document.

The court granted the motion, declaring the agreement validly rescinded and finding the individual defendants and a related corporation to be franchisor's associates jointly and severally liable.

The issue of damages was referred to a Master.

A self‑represented former client brought an application seeking assessment of his former solicitor’s legal accounts under the Solicitors Act.

The accounts had been delivered more than 12 months earlier, requiring the applicant to establish “special circumstances” to permit assessment.

The court found special circumstances existed because the solicitor failed to promptly deliver properly signed and detailed accounts and sent several invoices by email long after services had been performed and after the retainer had ended.

Relying on appellate authority emphasizing the importance of the client’s right to assessment, the court exercised its discretion to permit the reference.

All legal accounts were ordered to be assessed by an Assessment Officer.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming her involuntary admission to a psychiatric facility and finding her incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

She argued the Board misapprehended the evidence, applied the wrong legal test, and reached an unreasonable decision.

The court held that the appropriate standard of review for mixed questions of fact and law was reasonableness and found the Board’s decision comprehensive and supported by the evidence, including medical records and witness testimony regarding deteriorating mental and physical condition.

The court concluded that the statutory requirements under the Health Care Consent Act and Mental Health Act were properly applied.

The appeal was dismissed.

An elderly co-owner of a multi-unit residential property sought an order for partition and sale under the Partition Act, along with the potential appointment of a receiver/manager pending sale.

The court held that a tenant-in-common has a prima facie right to seek partition or sale unless the opposing party proves oppression, malice, or vexatious intent.

The respondents failed to demonstrate such circumstances, and evidence showed a lack of transparency and accounting in the property's management.

The court ordered that the property be valued and listed for sale, with the respondents given a short opportunity to purchase the applicant’s interest at fair market value.

If no acceptable offer is made, a receiver/manager will be appointed to manage and sell the property.

The applicant company sought an order to terminate a supplementary retirement plan trust fund and have the remaining assets distributed to it.

The trust fund was established to ensure employees transferred from a predecessor company would not be adversely affected regarding their pension entitlements.

The trustee refused to consent to the termination, citing a lack of evidence that the participants had received their full entitlements.

The court dismissed the company's application, finding that at least one participant had demonstrated a shortfall, and directed the trustee to obtain actuarial calculations for other participants before any remaining balance could be returned to the company.

Co-owners of a residential apartment complex brought a motion to stay a partition and sale application or, alternatively, to have it heard together with or consolidated with an earlier civil action involving related family disputes over the property and alleged financial dealings.

The court considered Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing consolidation of proceedings and the balance of convenience factors articulated in prior case law.

The court held that the two proceedings involved different legal issues and procedural postures, with the application proceeding on affidavit evidence and the action involving historical contractual and estate-related claims.

The court also found the motion was brought late and appeared designed to delay adjudication of the partition application.

The motion to stay, consolidate, or hear the matters together was dismissed.

The former husband brought a motion to change a final consent divorce order, seeking reimbursement for various small financial claims totaling $9,270.31 and $50,000 in costs thrown away, alleging unreasonable behaviour by the former wife.

The former wife brought a cross-motion seeking annual confirmation of the former husband's life insurance policy.

The court dismissed the former husband's motion in its entirety, finding his claims invalid and his conduct defiant and litigious.

The court granted the former wife's request regarding the life insurance policy.

The applicant estate trustee sought a declaration that the respondent breached a settlement agreement by failing to maintain and repair a property they co-owned as tenants-in-common.

The respondent had occupied the property but allowed it to fall into disrepair, resulting in a lower sale price.

The court found the respondent in breach of the agreement and awarded the estate $75,375 in damages, representing its 75% share of the estimated $100,500 loss in property value.

The court also ordered the balance of a contingency fund and the respondent's remaining sale proceeds to be applied against the damages.

Costs decision following dismissal of an application concerning powers of attorney and guardianship of an incapable adult.

The applicant, a child of the incapable person, had been removed as attorney for property and personal care and ordered to account for property taken without consent.

The court considered the appropriate scale and allocation of costs among family members, added parties, and the Public Guardian and Trustee.

Finding the applicant’s conduct scandalous and improper, including failure to serve parties, non-compliance with court orders, and allegations of elder abuse, the court ordered substantial indemnity costs payable personally by the applicant.

Costs incurred by the Public Guardian and Trustee were instead ordered payable from the incapable person’s assets due to its statutory role and absence of bad faith.

The applicant sought to remove his sister as an Estate Trustee and force the sale of their late father's home.

The estate had remained unadministered for over five years because the sister, who was living in the home rent-free, obstructed the listing and sale process.

The court found that the sister failed to act in the best interests of the estate and removed her as an Estate Trustee pursuant to section 37 of the Trustee Act.

She was ordered to vacate the property within 30 days, and the remaining trustees were granted sole authority to list and sell the home.

Following reasons dismissing a motion to stay or dismiss an action for lack of jurisdiction, the court addressed the quantum and scale of costs payable to the successful responding party.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs due to the complexity of a cross‑border employment dispute and the defendant’s attempt to pre‑empt Ontario proceedings with litigation in another jurisdiction.

The defendant argued costs should be limited to partial indemnity as the motion was reasonably brought.

Applying the principles in Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the proportionality considerations articulated in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, the court found substantial indemnity appropriate.

Costs were fixed at $19,177.07 payable within 30 days with post‑judgment interest if unpaid.

The applicants brought an urgent motion in a dependants’ relief proceeding seeking preservation of estate assets and the appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL).

The deceased’s will left the entire estate to his second spouse and made no provision for his minor child from a prior marriage, who had special needs.

Evidence raised concerns regarding the administration and disclosure of estate assets, including corporate holdings and potential transfers by the named estate trustee.

The court held that a neutral administrator was required to preserve and transparently manage the estate during litigation and to determine the true value of the estate assets.

The court therefore appointed an independent accountant as ETDL without requiring the posting of a bond.

Following a successful motion compelling answers to undertakings and refusals from discovery, the defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the conduct of counsel and the proportionality of the costs sought.

The court criticized the responding party’s failure to comply with undertakings, delays in responding, and counsel’s conduct during the motion.

Although the moving party sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $11,000, the court reduced the award to partial indemnity in light of proportionality and the plaintiff’s financial circumstances.

Costs were fixed at $8,728.22 payable to the defendant.

The appellant appealed a case management master's order compelling answers to various discovery questions in litigation arising from the crash of a Bombardier Global 5000 aircraft and a subsequent insurance coverage dispute.

The appellant argued the questions were irrelevant because the case turned solely on contractual interpretation of a pilot training clause and also asserted statutory privilege over information related to a Transportation Safety Board investigation.

The court held that the circumstances of the accident, pilot training, and statements provided to the Transportation Safety Board were relevant to issues raised in the pleadings, including whether simulator time satisfied the contractual pilot training requirement.

The court further held the statutory privilege argument was improperly raised for the first time on appeal and, in any event, the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighed the claimed privilege.

The master's discovery orders were upheld.

A senior manager alleged constructive dismissal after the employer reassigned him to a newly created role with the same salary but without staff, budget, job description, or clear responsibilities.

The court applied the objective test from Farber v. Royal Trust Co., asking whether a reasonable person would view the unilateral changes as substantially altering essential terms of employment.

The evidence showed the new role lacked managerial authority, resources, and status and was implemented while the employer had already arranged for another employee to assume the plaintiff’s former position.

The court concluded that the reassignment amounted to a demotion and constructive dismissal despite the unchanged salary.

Damages were awarded based on the period of unemployment following the dismissal.

A co-owner of a condominium property brought a motion for partition and sale under the Partition Act after the other registered co-owner failed to participate in the proceeding and was noted in default.

The evidence showed the moving party paid the down payment contributions attributable to himself and others, made all mortgage and carrying payments, and managed the property, while the responding co-owner made no financial contributions.

The court held that tenants in common have a prima facie right to compel partition or sale absent vexatious or oppressive conduct and ordered the sale of the property.

The court further ordered reimbursement to the moving party from the sale proceeds for down payment contributions, carrying costs, and a loan made to the responding co-owner.

Remaining proceeds were directed to be paid into court pending potential claims by other contributors.

The defendant moved under Rule 21.01(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to stay or dismiss an Ontario wrongful dismissal action on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction and that North Carolina was the more appropriate forum.

The moving party relied on contractual terms stating that the agreement was governed by the laws of North Carolina and argued that related proceedings had already been commenced there.

The responding party argued that she had worked in Ontario for 27 years, was paid in Canadian dollars through a Canadian bank, and that the termination occurred in Ontario.

Applying the forum non conveniens principles articulated in Van Breda and subsequent appellate authority, the court held that the defendant had not met the high burden required to displace the plaintiff’s chosen forum.

Ontario was found to be the appropriate forum given the location of the plaintiff, witnesses, and the employment relationship.

Following settlement of an eviction application by a housing co‑operative concerning rental arrears and repeated late payments, the only remaining issue was costs.

The co‑operative sought full indemnity costs exceeding $21,000 pursuant to its by‑laws and the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent tenant argued the amount was disproportionate and would cause undue hardship given her financial circumstances and that arrears had already been paid.

The court held that while the by‑laws contemplated substantial indemnity costs, the court retained discretion to reduce the award where full indemnity costs would be unfair or unduly onerous.

Considering proportionality, hardship, and the simplicity of the application, the court reduced the costs substantially.

An application sought guardianship over an elderly person's property and personal care.

The court found that a valid continuing power of attorney executed prior to the incapacity certificate governed management of the incapable person's affairs under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

The applicant had failed to disclose the power of attorney and faced allegations of elder abuse and misappropriation of the incapable person's property.

The court dismissed the guardianship application, removed the applicant as attorney for property and personal care under the existing power of attorney, and substituted other family members as attorneys.

Directions were also issued regarding return of personal property and continuation of restricted visitation arrangements.