Sylvia Corthorn

The applicant, a minor who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought court approval of a $100,000 settlement of her Statutory Accident Benefits claim.

The court declined to approve the settlement due to significant procedural and evidentiary deficiencies in the application record.

The deficiencies included a lack of notice to the respondent, absence of consent or minutes of settlement, incomplete draft order terms, and insufficient medical and financial evidence to determine if the settlement amount was reasonable.

The court remained seized of the matter and directed the applicant to file additional materials.

Following a successful trial for false arrest, excessive use of force, and Charter breaches against the police, the plaintiff sought costs.

The court found the plaintiff beat her Rule 49 offer to settle, entitling her to partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

After considering the complexity of the action and the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $181,210.00.

The appellant contractor appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claims against an insurer and an independent adjuster for unpaid repair work following a fire.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in finding no contract existed with the insurer or adjuster, and in dismissing its unjust enrichment claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the written contract was solely with the property owner and that the insurer and adjuster received no real benefit from the work.

Leave to appeal the substantial indemnity costs order was also denied.

The applicant sought court approval for a proposed $6,000 settlement regarding a dog bite injury sustained by a seven-year-old minor.

The court identified several deficiencies in the application record, including improper service on the unrepresented respondent, insufficient evidence of the settlement terms, incorrect calculation of the contingency fee, and failure to request an order dispensing with an oral hearing.

The court directed the applicant to file additional materials to address these deficiencies before the settlement could be approved.

The defendant was successful on a motion to set aside a default judgment, but was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the action thrown away on a substantial indemnity basis.

The parties agreed on $13,000 for the motion costs.

The court assessed the costs for the default proceeding, reducing the claimed fees for excessive time and unrelated garnishment work, and fixed the additional costs at $10,045, for a total of $23,045 to be paid from funds previously garnished.

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident and awarded damages by a jury, including $125,000 for non-pecuniary damages and $600,000 for future income loss, subject to a 10% reduction for contributory negligence.

In this post-trial ruling, the court determined the applicable prejudgment interest rate for non-pecuniary damages and whether the defendant was entitled to an assignment of the plaintiff's long-term disability (LTD) benefits.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to depart from the default 1.3% prejudgment interest rate.

The court also granted the defendant's request for an assignment of the plaintiff's LTD benefits until age 65 or until the future income loss award is exhausted, to prevent double recovery.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which had refused to dismiss a human rights application early.

The underlying human rights application alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate related to a student's expulsion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering with an ongoing tribunal proceeding.

The court distinguished a previous case, noting there was no risk of inconsistent findings, no broad principle at stake, and the judicial review had caused delay.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding him to be an unauthorized occupant of a Toronto Community Housing Corporation unit and ordering his eviction.

The Board found the original tenant had illegally transferred the tenancy to the appellant.

On appeal, the Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence and rejected his arguments regarding statutory time limits, procedural fairness, burden of proof, and Charter rights.

The court held that the statutory time limits did not apply to social housing, the correct standard of proof was a balance of probabilities, and the court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the Board's factual findings.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment order awarding the respondent employee nine months' pay in lieu of reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by failing to draw an adverse inference regarding the respondent's medical evidence and by applying an incorrect legal standard to the duty to mitigate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the respondent's medical condition prevented a serious job search, and no error of law in the application of the duty to mitigate.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing for approval of an infant settlement arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The court found the settlement amount reasonable but declined to approve it immediately due to procedural deficiencies.

The court required further evidence, including the 17-year-old minor's consent, alternative proposals for managing the settlement funds instead of paying them into court for seven months, a copy of the minutes of settlement, and a detailed breakdown of the solicitor-client account.

The motion was adjourned with the judge remaining seized.

During a personal injury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs objected to the admissibility of an expert report from the defendant's occupational therapist regarding the injured plaintiff's attendant care needs.

The plaintiffs argued the report did not comply with a previous court ruling that limited the expert's evidence to the practical delivery model of care rather than the quantum of hours required.

The court agreed with the plaintiffs, finding the report went beyond the permitted scope by critiquing the plaintiff's expert and opining on the number of hours needed.

The court ruled that only specific portions of the report addressing the cost and availability of personal support workers and handyman services were admissible.

The applicant previously brought a motion regarding arrears of child support and section 7 expenses.

The court issued an endorsement but left 2015 arrears undetermined pending income information.

The parties subsequently agreed on the respondent's 2015 income and arrears.

The court issued this addendum to update the previous endorsement with the agreed-upon figures for child support and post-secondary education expenses.

In this criminal proceeding, the court issued an addendum to an earlier hearsay ruling concerning statements made by two child witnesses in a daycare sexual abuse prosecution.

Applying the principled exception to the hearsay rule, the court identified which portions of each witness's later statements added materially to earlier statements and were therefore admissible for their truth, while confirming that overlapping portions were admissible only as circumstantial narrative relevant to reliability.

The addendum was to be read together with the earlier ruling on hearsay and a separate ruling on count-to-count similar fact evidence.

On a Crown application in a judge-alone criminal proceeding, the court admitted count-to-count similar fact evidence arising from allegations by two very young complainants who attended the accused's home daycare.

Applying the similar fact evidence framework, the court found substantial similarities in the surrounding circumstances and conduct, including the accused's role as daycare provider, the complainants' ages, the isolation of each child during nap, quiet, or movie time, and the sexualized conduct directed at each child.

The court rejected the defence contention that possible collusion undermined admissibility, finding no evidence of communication capable of supporting collusion and relying on the chronology of disclosure.

The probative value, particularly on reliability and credibility, outweighed the risk of prejudice.

The Crown brought an application during a trial for sexual offences to admit evidence of the accused's subsequent discreditable conduct as similar fact evidence.

The accused operated a home daycare where the offences allegedly occurred against two young children.

Three years later, neighbours observed the accused masturbating naked in his living room window.

The court applied the four-part test for discreditable conduct and found the evidence admissible regarding one complainant due to striking similarities in the location and nature of the act.

The application was dismissed regarding the second complainant as the conduct lacked sufficient similarity.

The plaintiffs suffered a residential fuel oil spill when their outdoor tank, which was labelled for indoor use, corroded and leaked.

They sued their fuel oil supplier, Ultramar, and its sub-contractor, Kilpatrick Fuels, in negligence and breach of contract.

The court found that the defendants breached the standard of care under the Technical Standards and Safety Act regime by failing to properly inspect, tag, and mandate the replacement of the non-compliant tank.

However, the court also found the plaintiffs contributorily negligent for failing to maintain their heating system.

Liability was apportioned 60% to Ultramar and 40% to the plaintiffs, with Ultramar entitled to 50% contribution from Kilpatrick.

The plaintiffs were awarded agreed subrogated damages of $750,000 and general damages of $30,000.

The applicant father brought an application to have his respondent son declared a vexatious litigant under section 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The dispute arose from disagreements over the care of the applicant's wife (the respondent's mother).

The respondent had commenced numerous proceedings in various courts against the applicant, police officers, and others, and had filed complaints against judges and counsel when unsuccessful.

The court applied the Lang Michener principles and found that the respondent had persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted meritless and repetitive proceedings.

The court declared the respondent a vexatious litigant and prohibited him from instituting or continuing any proceedings in Ontario without leave of the court.

The plaintiff son brought an action against his defendant father seeking an order to compel access to his mother.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found it had no jurisdiction to compel mentally competent adults to interact with one another and that the statement of claim raised no genuine issue for trial.

The plaintiff's request to amend his pleadings to add various tort claims was denied as the claims were statute-barred and vexatious.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, the action was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

During a trial for sexual offences alleged to have occurred at a home daycare, the Crown applied to admit the out-of-court statements of two young complainants under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The complainants, who were 3.5 and 5 years old at the time of the alleged offences, were unable to adopt their video-recorded police statements under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code due to a lack of present memory.

The court found that the necessity criterion was met because the children's direct evidence was unavailable despite reasonable efforts.

The court also found that the statements met the threshold reliability criterion based on substantive reliability, noting the children's lack of motive to lie, the absence of leading questions, and the fact that the sexual acts described were outside the expected knowledge of children their age.

The court declined to exercise its residual discretion to exclude the statements, finding their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

Following a 15-day family law trial where the respondent mother was entirely successful, she sought costs of $80,000 on a full indemnity basis.

The court found the self-represented applicant father's conduct protracted the trial, his positions were unreasonable, and he failed to accept offers to settle that were less favourable than the trial outcome.

The court awarded the requested $80,000 in full indemnity costs.

The court also exercised its discretion to order that $20,000 of the costs award be treated as a 'support order' enforceable under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, reflecting the portion of the trial dedicated to child support issues.