Sydney Tegan Reed McIvor

The Law Society of Ontario brought a certiorari application to quash a youth court judge's order that rescinded prior orders granting the Law Society access to the respondent's youth record for a good character investigation.

The Superior Court granted the application, finding that the youth court judge exceeded his jurisdiction by reconsidering his own prior orders without a material change in circumstances.

The court also found that the youth court judge committed an error of law on the face of the record by incorrectly interpreting section 82 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act as an absolute prohibition on accessing and using a youth record after the completion of a sentence, failing to read it in harmony with section 119 which permits such access.

The minor respondent sued the appellant for damages resulting from a dog bite.

The appellant sought leave to issue a third party claim against the respondent's mother for negligent supervision, eleven months after the statement of defence was filed.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding prejudice to the respondent and a lack of merit in the proposed claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, clarifying that the test for assessing the merits of a proposed third party claim out of time is the test for an extension of time, not the strict pleadings test under Rule 21.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

The parties had a brief relationship, after which the defendant made public allegations in the gaming community and on social media that the plaintiff had sexually assaulted her and was a sexual predator.

The court found that while the expressions related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff's defamation claim had substantial merit and there were grounds to defeat the defence of justification.

The court concluded that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the action to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendant's expressions.

The motion was dismissed, with no costs awarded.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed a civil action brought by Stephen Massey, purportedly also on behalf of his two daughters (J.M. and C.M.), against 31 defendants including the Children's Aid Society, the Office of the Children's Lawyer, various lawyers, and his ex-wife.

The claim, a collateral attack on prior family law proceedings that concluded in 2016, alleged child abuse and professional misconduct.

The court dismissed the action against Mr. Massey with prejudice due to his failure to attend case conferences, non-compliance with court orders, and the action being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, largely barred by the limitation period.

The claim on behalf of J.M. and C.M. was dismissed without prejudice, acknowledging potential discoverability issues and the uncertainty of their authorization.

The court imposed a leave requirement for Mr. Massey to initiate future proceedings against these defendants and awarded costs against him.

The plaintiff, Adam Provis, brought a motion to validate service of his statement of claim and extend the time for service nunc pro tunc to October 27, 2023, and to strike the defendants' limitation period defence.

The case arose from a failed real estate transaction where the defendants, Ramadhani Makele and Tantine Mkombozi, were the intended purchasers who failed to close.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing prejudice due to the delay in service and that their limitation defence should be determined at trial.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to serve, the delay was short, and the defendants failed to demonstrate prejudice caused by the delay.

The court also struck the limitation defence, confirming that the claim was commenced within the two-year limitation period by issuance of the statement of claim.

Samine LLC, the successful respondent in a prior appeal, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Samine requested $7,000, while the appellants, Digital Shovel Holdings Inc. and Scot Johnson (DSHI), proposed $5,192.92.

The court found Samine's requested amount reasonable, proportionate, and within the unsuccessful party's reasonable expectation, especially when compared to the time spent by DSHI's own counsel on the appeal.

The court awarded Samine LLC the full amount of $7,000 in costs.

The plaintiff provided electrical engineering and consulting services for a cannabis grow operation on tribal lands in California.

The project was shut down by a federal law enforcement raid, and the plaintiff was left with unpaid invoices for its work and materials.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, who had provided the funding for the project, arguing that the site manager who hired the plaintiff was acting as the defendant's agent.

The court found that the defendant and the tribe were in a partnership to operate the project, and that the site manager had actual authority to contract on behalf of the partnership.

The defendant was held liable for the unpaid invoices plus contractual interest.

The appellants appealed an Associate Judge's decision that allowed the respondent to amend its statement of claim to include a new cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation.

The appellants argued the new claim was statute-barred.

The Associate Judge had found a discoverability issue that warranted leaving the limitation period determination to trial or summary judgment.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, affirming that where a factual dispute exists regarding discoverability, amendments to pleadings should generally be allowed, and the limitation defence can be pleaded and determined at a later stage.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's decision.

The Blankenstein and Fialkov families, joint owners of a 168-unit apartment building through corporate entities, sought to separate their interests due to an irreconcilable breakdown in their relationship, exacerbated by an internal dispute within the Fialkov family.

The Blankensteins applied for a winding-up of Godstone Limited and a court-ordered buy-out of the Fialkovs' 50% interest at fair market value.

The primary contentious issue was the valuation date for the buy-out, with the Blankensteins seeking a current date (January 2023 or later) to reflect a market downturn, and the Fialkovs advocating for March 2022 (the market peak).

The court found that a buy-out was appropriate under s. 207 of the OBCA and determined the fairest valuation date to be November 3, 2022, the date of the application hearing, balancing the parties' expectations and the market fluctuations.

The court also addressed the applicants' alternative request for a public sale, finding it unnecessary given the buy-out order.