Susan E. Healey

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from dealing with estate assets and sought orders directing third parties to release hospital records, telephone records, and the defendant's will.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to strike the Statement of Claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and for being frivolous and an abuse of process.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a recognizable duty of care owed by the defendant, who was acting as attorney for personal care pursuant to a valid power of attorney.

The court struck the claim without leave to amend and dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding it was motivated by personal turmoil and collateral purposes rather than a viable legal claim.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action arising from a COVID-19 outbreak at Roberta Place Long Term Care Centre in Barrie, Ontario, from January 8 to February 18, 2021.

During the outbreak, 129 residents tested positive for COVID-19, resulting in 73 resident deaths (57% of the resident population).

The plaintiffs alleged systemic gross negligence by the defendants in failing to properly plan for and respond to the pandemic and implement adequate infection prevention and control (IPAC) measures.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding with three classes: residents who tested positive, estates of those who died from COVID-19, and eligible family members.

The court found that the plaintiffs met all five certification requirements under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including establishing common issues regarding duty of care, standard of care, breach, causation, and punitive damages.

The court rejected certification of aggregate damages as a common issue due to lack of evidence of a workable methodology.

This decision addresses the costs consequences following a successful summary judgment motion by the plaintiff, R & P Petroleum Inc., for payment of outstanding invoices.

The court considered the parties’ written submissions and awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, with an elevated amount due to a threatening and abusive email sent by or on behalf of the defendant, Ishvinder Singh Virk.

The court found the defendants’ conduct, including the email, warranted an award of $75,000 in costs to the plaintiff, to be paid jointly and severally by the defendants.

This decision concerns a failed real estate transaction between Brighton Breeze Ltd. and Noel Property Management Ltd. for a waterfront property in Brighton, Ontario.

The dispute centered on a notice registered on title by a neighbouring condominium corporation, which led to the collapse of the sale.

The court found that Noel was entitled to rely on the annulment clause in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) after Brighton failed to waive its objection to title.

The court dismissed Brighton’s claim for specific performance, ordered the discharge of the Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), and granted summary judgment in favour of Noel.

This is a costs decision following a successful motion for summary judgment by the defendant in a malicious prosecution claim.

The court reviews the parties’ submissions on costs, the applicable legal framework, and the principle of proportionality.

Ultimately, the court fixes costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant at $75,000 inclusive of HST, considering fairness, the nature of the offer to settle, and the context of the litigation.

The plaintiff, Marper Holdings Limited, sought summary judgment to enforce a mortgage debt against Foxpark Development Corporation, Carl Strand, and John Strand.

The court found that the defendants had defaulted on a $2 million loan secured by a mortgage, and that the individual defendants were liable as guarantors.

The court also dismissed the defendants' counterclaim, finding it disclosed no cause of action.

Judgment was granted for the full amount claimed, plus interest and costs, and Marper was granted possession of the property.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing Adam Bullock’s claim for malicious prosecution against Jane Doe, arising from criminal charges of sexual assault that were later withdrawn.

The decision reviews the high threshold for establishing malicious prosecution, especially against private individuals, and finds that Doe’s conduct—while misleading in some respects—did not compromise the independence of the police investigation or the decision to lay charges.

The court concludes that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial on the first element of the test for malicious prosecution, and that the remaining elements would also not support Bullock’s claim.

This decision concerns the fixing of costs following a successful summary judgment motion by Marian Massaar against her daughter Lauren Moneck and son-in-law Anthony Moneck.

The court found that Anthony’s unreasonable conduct and failure to provide evidence that a loan was a gift justified substantial and full indemnity costs to Marian and Lauren, respectively.

The court reviewed the relevant legal principles and awarded costs to Marian ($58,885) and Lauren ($43,000), both fixed and inclusive.

The applicants sought to quash two municipal by-laws (2020.16 and 2020.57) enacted by the Township of Ramara concerning shorewall construction and maintenance in Lagoon City.

The applicants argued the by-laws were ultra vires, contrary to provincial statute (the Mara Act), and enacted in bad faith, primarily due to mandatory aesthetic concrete requirements that increased costs and the transfer of appeal powers from the Lagoon City Parks & Waterway Commission to the Township.

The court found the by-laws illegal as they were inconsistent with the Mara Act by removing cost considerations and appeal rights, and were enacted for a collateral purpose (imposing a concrete aesthetic and circumventing existing permit applications).

The court also found sufficient indicia of bad faith, including collusion, interference with municipal officers, and lack of proper public notice.

The by-laws were quashed, and the Township was ordered to grant the applicants' permit applications under the previous by-law.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful Motion to Change brought by the respondent, Marcel Marriott, with the exception of spousal support.

The applicant, Kim Marriott, failed to submit her cost outline or submissions despite multiple reminders, leading to the respondent's costs request proceeding unopposed.

The court found that the respondent's formal offers to settle would have placed the applicant in a better position than the motion's outcome.

The applicant's conduct regarding increased transportation costs was deemed unreasonable.

The court reviewed the respondent's Bill of Costs and, considering the factors in s. 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, fixed costs at $9,500 to be paid by the applicant to the respondent.

The plaintiff, Marian Massaar, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of a $200,000 advance made to her daughter, Lauren Moneck, and son-in-law, Anthony Moneck, for their first home purchase.

Anthony contended the funds were a gift, while Lauren affirmed they were a loan.

The court found that the funds were indeed a loan, based on Marian's consistent intention, contemporaneous documents, and evidence of regular repayments by both defendants.

The court dismissed Anthony's arguments, finding his evidence lacked credibility, and granted summary judgment in favour of Marian for the outstanding loan amount.

Lauren's crossclaim for contribution and indemnity against Anthony was also granted.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final consent order regarding child and spousal support, and sought reimbursement for travel expenses incurred due to the applicant mother's unilateral relocation with the children.

The court denied the termination of spousal support, upholding the original order's terms.

However, child support was retroactively adjusted based on updated incomes and the children's status as dependants.

The court ordered the applicant to reimburse the respondent for past travel expenses, offsetting the respondent's child support arrears to nil, and mandated the applicant to share future travel responsibilities for parenting time.

This decision addresses the costs following a successful motion by the Defendant, Hantover Canada Inc., for a permanent stay of proceedings.

The court had previously ordered a permanent stay, finding the Plaintiff's action duplicative, an abuse of process, and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $86,843, citing the Plaintiff's unreasonable conduct, non-compliance with court directions (e.g., page limits for submissions), and the serious, unfounded allegations of fraud, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff, who is self-represented, opposed the costs award, primarily attempting to relitigate the original motion and claiming impecuniosity.

The court found the Plaintiff's conduct unreasonable and sanctioned it with an elevated cost award, noting his history of multiple actions and unpaid cost awards.

While acknowledging impecuniosity can be a factor, the court determined it would not shield the Plaintiff from accountability for his reprehensible conduct.

The court awarded the Defendant $82,000 in substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, Liebgard Scharfenberg, sought dependant's relief from the estate of her deceased husband, August Karl-Heinz Scharfenberg, under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The Deceased had made no provision for her in his will, citing a cohabitation agreement that released all claims to one another's estate.

The court found that the plaintiff was a dependant at the time of the Deceased's death, but ultimately dismissed her application for support.

The court found the plaintiff's credibility to be low and concluded that she had been financially opportunistic throughout the relationship, having divested herself of a significant asset from a previous marriage without rational explanation, and that she had not suffered financial detriment from the relationship with the Deceased.

The court held that it would be unconscionable to provide support from the estate given her actions and self-sufficiency.

The Crown brought an application at the outset of a jury trial for sexual assault to adduce uncharged discreditable conduct of the respondent.

The court ruled on the admissibility of various categories of evidence, including verbal and emotional abuse, shoving, and threats, balancing their probative value against potential prejudice.

The court admitted most of the proposed evidence, with some exclusions for hearsay or excessive prejudice, and provided a limiting instruction for the jury.

This medical negligence action involved cross-motions concerning the admissibility of expert evidence.

The plaintiff sought to admit five expert reports, arguing they fell within the scope of the Amended Statement of Claim, including claims for negligent post-operative care.

The defendants sought to declare portions of these reports inadmissible, arguing they concerned new causes of action (endoscopic exploration and orbital wall decompression) previously ruled statute-barred by a prior motion judge.

The court found that the Amended Claim did not plead general post-operative care and that the 'Other Procedures' were distinct surgical events, not post-operative care.

The court ruled that expert opinions on the statute-barred procedures were irrelevant and inadmissible, also applying the doctrine of res judicata as an exclusionary rule.

The plaintiff's motion was dismissed, and the defendants' motion was granted.

The defendant, Hantover Canada Inc., brought a motion for a permanent stay of proceedings or, alternatively, to strike the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim.

Hantover argued the action was an abuse of process and a duplicate of another ongoing action (the "Desiccare Action") involving similar factual allegations and claims.

The plaintiff, Guarav Tewari, argued the actions were distinct.

The court found substantial overlap in factual background and issues, concluding the Hantover Action was an abuse of process.

The court also found that the Amended Claim disclosed no reasonable causes of action for breach of contract, trade secret violation, fraudulent inducement, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or anti-trust/anti-competitiveness, as the plaintiff failed to plead material facts establishing a direct relationship or binding agreement with Hantover.

Leave to amend was denied as no viable claim against Hantover was possible and an unjust enrichment claim would likely be statute-barred.

The court ordered the claim permanently stayed.

This decision addresses an application for directions by the accused (B.W.) in a criminal proceeding.

The applicant sought a ruling on whether certain emails in his possession were "records" under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code and permission to use them for cross-examination of the complainant.

The court conducted an in camera review, classifying some emails as records due to their intimate and highly personal nature (e.g., marital difficulties, financial status) and others as not (mundane exchanges).

The application to use the emails deemed "records" was dismissed due to the applicant's non-compliance with procedural requirements, including late service and failure to provide detailed particulars.

The application to use the emails deemed "not records" was granted, subject to a potential s. 276 application for two specific emails and general rules of evidence.

The court also allowed the applicant to challenge the admissibility of prior discreditable conduct evidence, despite an earlier indication of no objection, emphasizing the right to a fair trial.

This was an application for a Norwich order seeking disclosure of an unredacted complaint and the identity of its anonymous author from Metrolinx, a non-party.

The applicants, Brandon Taylor, Sarah Taylor, and JAAX Inc., intended to sue the complainant for defamation, intentional infliction of mental distress, and intentional interference with economic relations, alleging significant personal and business harm.

Metrolinx opposed disclosure, citing confidentiality and privacy policies, and the complainant's refusal to consent due to safety concerns.

The court applied the five-part Norwich test, finding that the applicants had a bona fide claim and that the public interest in disclosure outweighed privacy concerns, particularly because the communication did not originate in confidence and confidentiality was not essential to the relationship between an unsolicited complainant and a Crown corporation.

The application was granted, ordering Metrolinx to disclose the complainant's identity.

The defendant, Randy Gliddon, brought a motion to set aside an ex parte order that permitted the plaintiffs to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property.

The defendant argued that the CPL was obtained without full and fair disclosure and that there was no triable issue.

The court found no material non-disclosure, noting that the plaintiffs' reliance on an alleged oral trust agreement between the deceased and the defendant, as evidenced by a lawyer's email, was sufficient to raise a triable issue regarding the severance of joint tenancy.

The motion to set aside the CPL order was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.