Susan E. Healey

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his involuntary committal under the Mental Health Act.

He argued that the Board erred in finding he met the criteria for committal, that his initial Form 1 assessment upon completion of a criminal sentence ('psychiatric gating') was defective, and that his ongoing detention violated his Charter rights.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by evidence of the appellant's mental disorders and risk of harm.

The court also held that the initial Form 1 was validly executed and that the civil committal regime under the Mental Health Act does not constitute arbitrary detention or double punishment, and thus does not violate the Charter.

Following a jury verdict awarding modest damages in a motor vehicle accident action, the defendant brought a post-verdict threshold motion seeking a declaration that the plaintiff’s claim for non‑pecuniary damages was barred under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court applied the three-part test from Meyer v. Bright to determine whether the plaintiff sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.

Despite the minor impact of the final collision and the jury’s minimal damages award, the court found credible medical and vocational evidence that the accident exacerbated existing conditions, resulting in chronic pain syndrome and functional incapacity preventing gainful employment.

The court held that the plaintiff met the statutory threshold and the defendant remained liable for non‑pecuniary damages.

The accused brought a pre‑trial application seeking exclusion of a police interview statement on the basis that their right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter was breached.

The detainee repeatedly requested to speak with a specific lawyer, but police made limited efforts to contact that lawyer and suggested duty counsel after learning the requested lawyer practised civil litigation.

The court held that police failed to diligently facilitate the accused’s right to counsel of choice and did not provide the required explanation that questioning would be delayed until a reasonable opportunity to consult that lawyer had occurred.

Applying the test in Grant, the court found the breach serious and potentially impactful on the accused’s decision to speak.

The statement was excluded under s. 24(2), although the court held that the statement would otherwise have been voluntary under the confessions rule.

Contractors sought declarations compelling three commercial general liability insurers to defend them in an underlying construction action concerning alleged defects in septic systems installed in a residential subdivision.

The court considered whether the pleadings disclosed “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the policies and whether exclusions, including the “your work” and “professional services” exclusions, applied.

Although the pleadings raised a mere possibility of property damage caused by an occurrence, the court found that the “your work” exclusion applied and that the subcontractor exception was not established on the pleadings because the alleged supplier of filter sand was merely a supplier and not a subcontractor.

As a result, the insurers had no duty to defend.

The motion for a declaration compelling a defence was dismissed.

The moving parties (the Caribbean defendants) sought an order under Rule 57.07 directing that the costs of the action, previously awarded in their favour in the amount of $84,000, be made payable personally by the plaintiff's former lawyer on a joint and several basis with the plaintiff.

The underlying action had been dismissed as an abuse of process and a collateral attack on prior rulings.

The court found that the lawyer's conduct in drafting and advancing a vexatious claim with scandalous and unsupported allegations caused costs to be incurred unnecessarily.

The court granted the motion, ordering the lawyer to pay the $84,000 costs jointly and severally with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought an action against 39 defendants, including lawyers, police officers, and private investigators, seeking $20 million in damages for various torts including abuse of process, negligent investigation, and conspiracy.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The court found the action was a collateral attack on previous court orders finding the plaintiff in contempt of court.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and alternatively struck the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Substantial costs were awarded to the defendants.

The applicant sought declaratory relief that certain software licensing agreements were not part of any contract governing its use of software used in manufacturing systems and that it owed no further licensing fees.

The dispute arose after the respondents conducted an audit and claimed additional fees based on a per‑core licensing model introduced after a software upgrade.

The court held that the application procedure under Rule 14.05(3) was inappropriate where key facts regarding delivery and acceptance of licensing terms were disputed.

Because the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement to declaratory relief and the evidentiary record was incomplete and conflicting, the court declined to determine the contractual issues on the application record.

The application was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondents.

Following a successful summary judgment motion, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant had advanced allegations of tax fraud and illegality against the plaintiff in the pleadings, which the court found were serious and unsupported.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, including indemnity principles, the parties’ expectations, complexity of the proceedings, and the importance of the issues.

The court held that unfounded allegations of dishonesty and illegality can justify costs on a higher scale.

Substantial indemnity costs were therefore awarded.

In a medical negligence action arising from the alleged failure to diagnose fetal spina bifida on obstetrical ultrasound, the plaintiffs moved to amend their statement of claim to assert personal wrongful birth claims and plead discoverability under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendant radiologist opposed the amendments, arguing they introduced a new cause of action outside the limitation period and sought summary judgment dismissing the action as statute‑barred.

The court held the proposed amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but merely provided further particulars and clarification of claims already implicit in the factual matrix of the original pleading.

The court also found a genuine issue for trial regarding discoverability because expert opinion was required to determine whether the ultrasound findings should have been diagnosed as spina bifida.

Leave to amend was granted and the limitation defence could not be resolved on summary judgment.

The applicant sought appointment of counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code to assist with an appeal of a criminal harassment conviction after Legal Aid declined coverage.

The court considered whether the interests of justice required appointment of counsel and whether the applicant lacked sufficient means to retain counsel.

Although the applicant was a trained paralegal with experience representing himself and others in court, the proposed appeal raised complex issues concerning the appointment and selection of counsel under s. 486.3 of the Criminal Code and the accused’s right to counsel of choice.

The court held that the appeal presented an arguable issue involving trial fairness and due process that warranted appellate consideration.

Given the complexity and significance of the issue, appointment of counsel was found desirable in the interests of justice.

The appellant appealed a conviction for assault with a weapon after a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The primary grounds of appeal were that the trial judge erred in admitting an out‑of‑court statement of a witness for the truth of its contents and that the verdict was unreasonable absent reliance on that statement.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge properly applied the legal principles governing hearsay admissibility and threshold reliability.

Although the trial judge misstated certain words from the witness’s recorded statement, the appellate court found the misstatement related only to detail and not substance.

The evidence, taken as a whole, supported the inference that the witness observed the assault.

The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The plaintiffs were successful at trial and sought costs.

Following the release of the trial judgment but before costs submissions were complete, the main defendant made an assignment in bankruptcy, triggering a stay of proceedings under s. 69(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to fix costs because the costs associated with a pre-bankruptcy judgment for a liquidated sum are regarded as an addition to the sum recovered.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $150,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis against the bankrupt defendant due to an unaccepted offer to settle and unfounded allegations of fraud.

The plaintiffs were also ordered to pay $5,661 in costs to a successful co-defendant, and were awarded $1,000 against another co-defendant for defending an exaggerated counterclaim.

Following a trial where the plaintiffs were successful, the defendant Negravi made an assignment in bankruptcy before costs submissions were completed.

The court held that the proceedings to fix costs were not stayed by s. 69(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, applying the rule from British Gold Fields that costs associated with a pre-bankruptcy judgment for a liquidated sum are added to the sum recovered.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $150,000 in costs against Negravi on a substantial indemnity basis due to his unreasonable conduct and unfounded counterclaim.

Nominal costs were awarded against another defendant, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay costs to a successful third defendant.

A real estate brokerage sought summary judgment for unpaid commission under a Buyer Representation Agreement after the defendant purchased a property during the agreement’s term.

The defendant argued the agreement had been terminated by an oral agreement and that the brokerage failed to perform its obligations to assist with the purchase.

The court held that the alleged oral termination lacked evidentiary support and failed to establish the essential elements of a binding agreement.

The court also found the brokerage had fulfilled its contractual obligation to assist the buyer and that the eventual purchase largely relied on earlier efforts undertaken by the brokerage.

Summary judgment was granted and the buyer was ordered to pay the contractual commission.

Following a four‑day family law trial addressing property division and spousal support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Although the applicant obtained significant retroactive support and equalization relief, success at trial was mixed, with several issues resolved in the respondent’s favour, including income findings and an inheritance exclusion claim.

The court considered the parties’ settlement offers under rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules and the general costs factors under rule 24.

Substantial indemnity costs were found inappropriate due to mixed success and reasonable litigation conduct by both parties.

The court reduced the applicant’s claimed partial indemnity costs and ordered the respondent to pay a fixed amount.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against a corporate plaintiff that admitted it was no longer operating and likely lacked assets in Ontario.

The plaintiff argued that security should not be ordered because the defendant’s counterclaim exceeded the value of the claim and arose from the same facts.

The court held that the existence or size of a counterclaim is not determinative and does not bar security for costs where the statutory grounds under Rule 56.01 are met.

The plaintiff’s principal offered a personal undertaking to cover costs, but the court found insufficient evidence of assets to make the undertaking adequate security.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $58,000 as security for costs and awarded motion costs to the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce Minutes of Settlement regarding the sale of a marina property.

The defendant opposed, claiming a set-off and counterclaim for damages resulting from the collapse of boat slips due to snow load, alleging the plaintiff failed to maintain and insure the property while in possession.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the Minutes of Settlement contained a full release and imposed no obligation on the plaintiff to maintain or insure the property for the defendant's benefit.

The defendant was ordered to pay the $500,000 owed under the settlement.

The respondent wife brought a motion to consolidate a family law proceeding with a civil action commenced by her father-in-law regarding ownership of the matrimonial home, and to remove the applicant husband's counsel.

The court granted the consolidation, finding that the common issue of property ownership and the risk of inconsistent findings favoured combining the cases.

The court also ordered the removal of the husband's counsel, who also represented the father-in-law, because she had met directly with the represented wife without her counsel present, creating an appearance of impropriety and breaching the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Following a trial on a motion to change child support, the court addressed costs.

The respondent was largely successful in obtaining a reduction in support for multiple years, although not to the full extent requested.

The court found that both parties had engaged in unreasonable conduct: the respondent by understating income in financial disclosure, and the applicant by persisting in allegations of significantly increased income despite contrary evidence and failing to clarify accounting information before trial.

The respondent had made a reasonable offer to settle that closely approximated the eventual order, while the applicant made none.

Costs were awarded to the respondent, including disbursements for the accountant who testified at trial.

The successful party sought costs following a family law trial regarding custody, access, and child support, where she was entirely successful.

The unsuccessful party's financial claims had been struck prior to trial due to his failure to comply with disclosure orders.

The successful party had made an offer to settle that was less favourable to her than the trial outcome.

The court considered the unsuccessful party's unreasonable behaviour, including his failure to follow multiple court orders and provide financial disclosure.

The court awarded the successful party costs fixed at $30,864, on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter.