Sylvia Corthorn

The applicant condominium corporation sought compliance orders against a unit owner and his tenant for repeated breaches of the Condominium Act and governing documents, including property damage, drug use, and nuisance.

The court found the tenant's behavior constituted breaches and granted the compliance order, converting the application hearing into a motion for efficiency.

The court also granted leave for the corporation to bring a future motion for eviction if breaches continue, while addressing the tenant's capacity concerns.

Adan McIntosh, a self-represented plaintiff, sued three judges (Justice Shore, Associate Chief Justice McWatt, and Chief Justice Morawetz) for defamation and other claims, alleging their conduct denied him access to justice in his family litigation.

The defendants' counsel sought dismissal of the action under Rule 2.1.01, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the claims against Associate Chief Justice McWatt and Chief Justice Morawetz, finding them to lack legal basis.

It also dismissed specific relief sought against Justice Shore (finding of want of jurisdiction and forced leave of absence).

However, the court refused to dismiss the defamation claim against Justice Shore, despite pleading deficiencies, stating the claim was not patently frivolous, vexatious, or abusive.

The plaintiff, Digital Business Systems Inc. (DBS), sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale following the settlement of its motion for injunctive relief against the defendants, Documents XMA Inc., Jean-Francois Roberge, and Cynthia Martin.

The motion concerned alleged breaches of a mutual non-solicitation agreement and misuse of confidential information after a former DBS employee joined XMA.

The court found DBS had a strong prima facie case, the defendants' pre-litigation conduct was egregious, and DBS achieved significant success on the substantive issues.

The court awarded DBS costs on a substantial indemnity scale, fixed at $28,395, payable forthwith.

The plaintiff, Adan McIntosh, commenced an action against Justice Sutherland, alleging bad faith and lack of jurisdiction in a previous family law matter where McIntosh was not a party.

The defendant, Justice Sutherland, sought dismissal of the action under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that McIntosh's claims were based on dissatisfaction with a prior decision in which he lacked standing, and that his reliance on s. 142 of the Courts of Justice Act was misguided as it does not apply to judicial conduct.

The court dismissed the action, finding it frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and waived the requirement for further submissions.

This endorsement addresses an application by Stephen Vriend to be appointed guardian of property and person for his mother, Ellen Charlotte Vriend, who suffers from severe dementia.

The court granted the guardianship of the person, approving the proposed Guardianship Plan.

However, the application for guardianship of property was adjourned due to significant potential conflicts of interest arising from Stephen's role as Estate Trustee for Ellen's deceased husband's estate, from which Ellen is a major beneficiary.

The court also addressed various procedural deficiencies, including improper service on Ellen's siblings and the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), and non-compliance with court document formatting rules.

The PGT was ordered to arrange independent legal representation for Ellen to protect her interests regarding the property guardianship.

This decision addresses a preliminary issue in an application for an oppression remedy: whether Neu Solutions Inc. (NSI) remained a 50% shareholder of eSolutions MN Inc. after July 2016.

The respondents argued that NSI had relinquished its shares through an agreement.

The court applied contract law principles, including the requirement for a meeting of the minds and certainty of essential terms, and found no enforceable agreement to transfer shares.

The court also noted the lack of compliance with the share transfer restrictions in eSolutions' Articles of Incorporation.

Consequently, the court ruled that NSI remained a 50% shareholder of eSolutions.

The Crown sought to admit recognition evidence from Det. Walrond, identifying the accused, Zekeim Ogilvie, on a video recording related to a shooting.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine threshold admissibility based on the Berhe and Hudson tests.

The court found that Det. Walrond's prior acquaintance with Mr. Ogilvie, primarily a 53-minute police interview, did not afford him a sufficient level of familiarity to provide valuable and otherwise unavailable identifying information regarding Ogilvie's gait, movement, facial features, complexion, hairline, and hairstyle.

The court also noted that the trial judge had sufficient opportunity and other evidence (like a photograph) to make their own assessment.

Consequently, the Crown's application for the admission of Det. Walrond's recognition evidence was dismissed.

The defendants, Cyndric Group Inc., brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered by the plaintiff, Stayside Corporation Inc., on a property subject to an agreement of purchase and sale.

The court granted the discharge of the CPL, finding that the plaintiff failed to prosecute the action with reasonable diligence, which was a sufficient singular ground.

Additionally, the court considered the equities, noting the plaintiff's corporate status (a dissolved numbered company, 677 Canada, being the original party to the agreement, and Stayside's lack of activity) against the defendants' long-standing interest in developing the property.

The court ordered the CPL discharged but imposed a term requiring the defendants to preserve 50 acres of the property pending the outcome of the main action.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change seeking sole decision-making and a week-about parenting schedule.

The respondent father sought sole decision-making, reduced parenting time for the mother, child support adjustments, a restraining order, and a declaration that the mother is a vexatious litigant.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's escalating confrontational behavior, failure to follow court orders, and inappropriate social media posts.

The court awarded sole decision-making to the father, reduced the mother's parenting time to every second weekend, imputed income to the mother for child support purposes, granted a restraining order, and declared the mother a vexatious litigant.

The condominium corporation brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence and counterclaim due to the defendant's persistent non-compliance with court-ordered timetables for examinations for discovery.

The defendant, who was self-represented, failed to provide available dates for discovery, did not attend a unilaterally scheduled examination, and raised concerns about documentary discovery outside of proper procedural channels.

The court found the defendant's conduct to be intentional and contumelious, granting the motion to strike the defence and dismiss the counterclaim.

The defendant, a Member of Parliament, faced two counts of breach of trust under section 122 of the Criminal Code, alleging he solicited funds by deceit or for personal benefit in connection with his official duties.

After the Crown closed its case, the defence brought a motion for a directed verdict.

The court examined the evidence regarding loans obtained from individuals who had received immigration assistance or invitations to a Prime Minister's event.

The court found that the Crown failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish the second element of the offence, specifically that the alleged conduct was "in connection with the duties of his office." The court determined that the inferences required to support the Crown's theory, such as the loans being connected to prior immigration assistance or the event invitations demonstrating partiality, amounted to impermissible speculation or conjecture.

Consequently, the motion for a directed verdict was granted, and the defendant was acquitted on both charges.

The defendants brought motions to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim, which sought over $2.2 million in damages related to real estate properties the plaintiff did not own.

The plaintiff, who had recently been declared a vexatious litigant in a separate proceeding, sought an adjournment, which was denied.

The court struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, finding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, the plaintiff lacked capacity to sue regarding properties he did not own, and the action was an abuse of process.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial and substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant midwives brought a motion to strike the plaintiff father's claims against them, specifically the 'duty to report' claim.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment to seek leave to amend their pleadings, which the court denied due to delay and inefficiency.

The court then applied the Anns/Cooper framework to the proposed 'duty to inform' the substitute decision-maker, finding it was essentially the established duty to obtain informed consent, which falls within the midwives' scope of practice.

As the scope of practice claims had already been struck in a previous ruling, the court struck the remaining duty to report claims without leave to amend.

The plaintiff sought judgment against the defendants for breach of a credit agreement and minutes of settlement, including specific pre-judgment and post-judgment interest rates.

The motion was brought without notice based on the minutes of settlement.

The court adjourned the motion, finding insufficient evidence to justify the agreed-upon interest rates (12% pre-judgment, 24% post-judgment) which deviated from statutory rates, and questioning the validity of notice given discrepancies in email addresses and the requested judgment differing from the consented draft.

The court required the plaintiff to provide further evidence, ensure proper notice, and file a complete motion record for an oral hearing.

Zekeim Ogilvie, charged with multiple offences related to a shooting, brought a pre-trial Charter application to exclude evidence (an iPhone and its data) obtained from a vehicle search.

He argued the warrantless search, conducted under the Liquor Licence Act, violated his section 8 and 9 Charter rights due to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds.

The court examined whether Ogilvie, as a passenger, had standing to challenge the search by establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle.

Despite owning the iPhone found in the vehicle, the court found that he did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle as a whole, given the significantly reduced privacy interest in vehicles, especially for non-owner passengers.

Consequently, the court ruled that Ogilvie lacked standing to challenge the validity of the search, and his application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

This application sought court approval for the settlement of a Statutory Accident Benefits (SABS) claim, a contingency fee retainer agreement, and the proposed solicitor-client account for a catastrophically impaired applicant.

The court approved the $935,000 SABS settlement, finding it reasonable despite delays and erosion of the lump sum.

However, the contingency fee agreement was dismissed due to non-compliance with the Solicitors Act and its regulations.

The solicitor-client account was approved on a fee-for-service basis, with some disbursements disallowed, resulting in a fixed amount of $193,365.43.

A non-party to a family law proceeding filed two motions for leave to appeal previous endorsements that had denied him standing and restricted his contact with the children.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the non-party lacked standing, failed to properly serve the parties, and that the motions constituted an abuse of process.

The court ordered that the non-party must obtain leave before filing any further documents in the proceeding.

The respondent brought a motion for leave to appeal a previous order that dismissed his motion to recuse a judge.

The respondent failed to obtain leave of the court to bring the motion, as required by a prior order restricting his ability to file further motions.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal due to this procedural non-compliance and ordered court staff not to accept further materials from the respondent unless they include the correct title of proceeding.

The moving party brought two motions seeking to set aside previous orders and recuse the judges who made them.

The court reviewed the motions under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if they were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the motions lacked legal basis, were exemplary of a pattern of abusive behaviour, and were abusive of the court process on their face, the court dismissed both motions without requiring written submissions.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision dismissing its motion to dismiss the respondent insurer's application for loss transfer indemnity under s. 275 of the Insurance Act.

The dispute arose after a pedestrian was struck by a vehicle insured by the appellant and claimed Statutory Accident Benefits under a motorcycle policy issued by the respondent to the pedestrian's father.

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitrator's findings that the priority scheme in s. 268 of the Insurance Act ranks insurers, not policies, and that the respondent was entitled to indemnification.

The appeal was dismissed.