Sylvia Corthorn

The applicant, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), sought to register an Alberta judgment in Ontario without notice to the respondent.

The court found that CMHC failed to establish that the respondent was personally served with the "original action" (the Alberta application for a new judgment) and that the respondent did not appear or defend in that action.

Consequently, under s. 2(2) of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act (REJA), CMHC was required to give reasonable notice.

The application was adjourned, and CMHC was ordered to proceed on notice to the respondent, with the court also noting concerns regarding the quality of CMHC's affidavit evidence and the calculation of the judgment amount.

The applicant sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity scale following a consent order resolving her motion for a Mareva injunction and Norwich order against the respondent, her brother and co-estate trustee.

The respondent had unilaterally transferred approximately $500,000 of estate assets to himself.

The court declined to award elevated costs, noting the applicant had also participated in impersonating the deceased to facilitate the initial transfer of funds.

The court fixed the applicant's costs on a partial indemnity scale at $45,960.00 and found the respondent's settlement offer did not entitle him to a costs set-off as it lacked the certainty achieved in the consent order.

The plaintiff's counsel brought a motion seeking an order to continue the action and appoint a litigation administrator for the deceased plaintiff's estate.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding insufficient evidence to establish that there was no executor or administrator for the estate.

The court also raised concerns about the appropriateness of appointing a lawyer from the plaintiff's firm as litigation administrator, particularly regarding the implications for examination for discovery in a subrogated claim and potential ethical conflicts.

The court further noted the necessity of amending the statement of claim to reflect the change in party representation.

The applicant, Patricia Graham, sought to invalidate her late sister Sheila Mary McNally's 2020 will on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and suspicious circumstances.

The respondent, Katherine Blais (estate trustee and beneficiary), moved to dismiss the application, arguing the applicant failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold.

The court found that the applicant's evidence was largely speculation and suspicion, failing to meet the required threshold to call the will's validity into question.

The motion to dismiss was granted, and the application was dismissed in its entirety, with costs awarded against the applicant.

This ruling addresses the costs of an application for guardianship of person and property.

The applicant, Stephen Vriend, sought costs on a full indemnity scale from Ellen Charlotte Vriend's property.

The court granted Stephen leave to file an updated bill of costs and fixed his costs at a reduced amount, payable from Ellen's property.

The court also reiterated the process for Section 3 counsel to claim their costs, emphasizing that such costs must be determined by the court, not by private agreement.

The plaintiff, Gabriel J. Martel, brought a defamation action against the City of Ottawa and Jeff DeLoyde.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, relying on the defence of qualified privilege.

The court found that the impugned communications (a Vendor Performance Management report and a Notice of Non-Performance) were made on occasions of qualified privilege, arising from the contractual and business-to-business relationship between the City and ASCO Construction Ltd. (Martel's employer), and in the construction context, including complaints to Martel's employer.

The court also found no evidence of malice to defeat the privilege and that the privilege was not exceeded.

Consequently, the defence of qualified privilege was found to be entirely dispositive of the plaintiff's claims.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

This endorsement is the fourth in a series concerning an application for approval of a settlement for damages arising from two falls.

The court identified significant procedural deficiencies, including an improperly amended notice of application, non-compliant affidavit evidence from counsel's associate (failing to meet Rule 39.01(5) and Rule 7.08(4)(b) requirements), and an incomplete draft order.

The application was adjourned, and the applicants were ordered to formally amend their notice of application and file a compliant supplementary record, including proper affidavit evidence and a revised draft order addressing all necessary relief.

This is the fourth ruling in a motion brought by the plaintiffs for approval of a settlement concerning minor plaintiffs' claims, management of net settlement funds, a contingency fee retainer agreement, and the solicitor-client account.

The court had previously approved the settlement for both minor plaintiffs and the solicitor-client account on a quantum meruit basis, but dismissed the request for approval of the contingency fee agreement.

This ruling specifically addresses the final determination of the minor plaintiffs' pro-rata contributions to the solicitor-client account and the net settlement amounts payable to them, while also providing detailed directions for the revision of the draft order.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg, following a trial judge's decision to exclude breath samples due to a s. 10(b) Charter infringement.

The appeal court found that the trial judge erred in law by unreasonably assessing the police officer's safety concerns, concluding that the brief delay in informing the accused of his right to counsel was justified and did not constitute a Charter breach.

Alternatively, even if a breach occurred, the subsequent Charter-compliant conduct severed the connection to the breath samples, rendering them admissible under the "fresh start" principle.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, a conviction entered, and the minimum sentence imposed.

The applicant sought an order to appoint an arbitrator and compel the respondent to participate in arbitration regarding disputes arising from construction contracts.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application or stay it, arguing that a different contract's dispute resolution clause (requiring court adjudication) applied and that Hydro One was a necessary party to any arbitration.

The court found that the broader CCDC Contract's arbitration clause governed the disputes, not the more specific Construction Contract's court adjudication clause.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion in its entirety and granted the applicant's request for arbitration, holding that questions of an arbitrator's jurisdiction, including whether Hydro One was a necessary party, should be left to the arbitrator under the competence-competence principle.

The applicants sought interim relief in an estate dispute, including leave to pass accounts for an attorney for property, production of bank records, and permission to visit Michael Dawson (101 years old).

The respondents opposed some relief and sought to strike an exhibit from an affidavit.

The court, through extensive discussion, facilitated the parties' agreement on most interim issues.

The court ordered the amendment of the title of proceeding to properly constitute Josephine Dawson's estate, granted leave for the applicants to bring a motion to pass accounts, ordered the production of bank records, and permitted the applicants to visit Michael Dawson under supervision.

The court also struck an exhibit from Sheila Dawson's affidavit and adjourned the motion to strike related paragraphs.

The court emphasized the need for parties to resolve procedural matters collaboratively and warned about the costs of estate litigation.

The plaintiff corporation, 10490423 Canada Inc., commenced an action seeking declaratory relief and damages.

The defendant, 1951584 Ontario Inc., brought a motion to dismiss the action due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with two court orders regarding legal representation and overall delay.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to comply with the orders to appoint new counsel or obtain leave for non-lawyer representation, and also failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to secure representation.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action in its entirety based on the non-compliance with court orders.

The separate ground for dismissal based on overall delay was dismissed due to insufficient evidence to meet the required criteria for prejudice.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion to enforce payment of common expenses arrears, NSF fees, and administrative fees against the defendant unit owner, and sought leave to issue a writ of possession.

The defendant, along with other occupants, requested an adjournment, which was denied due to the defendant's long-standing arrears and lack of timely response.

The court granted leave to issue a writ of possession, ordered the defendant to pay additional NSF charges, and set prejudgment and postjudgment interest rates at 1% per month compounded monthly, as per the Corporation's by-law.

The determination of the full amount of common expense arrears and the quantum of costs was adjourned for a future case conference.

This application under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, concerned the guardianship of property for an incapable individual.

The court previously declared the individual incapable of personal care and appointed the applicant as guardian of the person.

This ruling addressed the guardianship of property, finding the individual incapable of managing property.

The court appointed the applicant and the individual's sister as joint guardians of property, approving their management plan.

The court dismissed a request for single-signature reimbursement for small expenses and ordered the guardians to post a one-time security bond of $1,440,000, to be paid from the incapable person's assets, rejecting the applicant's argument against security based on future inheritance.

The court also addressed the Public Guardian and Trustee's costs and clarified issues regarding the estate of the incapable person's late husband.

Costs for the applicant and Section 3 counsel were adjourned for further submissions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add an insurer (Economical Mutual Insurance Company, now Definity Insurance Company) as a defendant based on an OPCF 44R endorsement and to increase the quantum of damages.

The defendant opposed the motion.

The court found deficiencies in the service of motion materials on the proposed defendant and insufficient evidence to support the existence of the OPCF 44R endorsement.

Additionally, the defendant's counsel was an articling student not authorized to argue contested motions before a judge.

The court granted an extension for setting the action down for trial but adjourned the balance of the motion, requiring the plaintiffs to rectify the procedural and evidentiary deficiencies.

No costs were awarded for the initial hearing.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's medical malpractice action on summary judgment, the successful defendant physicians and hospital sought their costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, had alleged a delayed diagnosis of Lyme disease against 35 physicians and the hospital.

The court found that the plaintiff acted unreasonably by ignoring repeated guidance regarding the necessity of expert opinion evidence and by failing to familiarize himself with relevant legal practices.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants, fixing the physicians' costs at $365,095.67 and the hospital's costs at $75,019.11.

The applicant, a beneficiary of an estate, brought a motion for contempt against the respondent estate trustee for failing to provide an accounting of the estate as previously ordered by Justice R. Smith.

The court found the respondent in contempt due to his continued non-compliance and lack of explanation, emphasizing the egregious nature of an estate trustee's failure to account.

The court ordered the respondent to purge his contempt within 60 days by complying with the original order and to pay the applicant's costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The judge remained seized of the matter, warning of more serious sanctions if non-compliance continued.

The Estate Trustee of a deceased co-owner sought partition and sale of a property held as tenants in common with the deceased's three brothers.

The respondents failed to engage in discussions or respond to the application.

The court granted the application for partition and sale, affirming the prima facie right of an owner to such an order unless malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct is proven.

Due to the respondents' non-cooperation, the applicant was granted carriage of the sale, with the court dispensing with the need for respondents' consent or signatures for sale-related documents.

The applicant sought amendments to previous orders for partition and sale and exclusive possession of a jointly owned property, due to the respondent's continued non-compliance and refusal to vacate.

The court granted vacant exclusive possession and amended the restraining order to prohibit the respondent from being within 200 metres of the property at all times.

However, the court declined to issue an order directing police on the use of physical force or warrantless arrest, instead granting leave for the applicant to seek further urgent relief, such as contempt or a writ of possession.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The Ottawa Community Housing Corporation (OCHC) sued Sloan Valve Company and Wolseley Canada Inc. for damages related to the alleged failure of the Flushmate System, asserting claims for breach of warranty under the Sale of Goods Act, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation.

The defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to strike OCHC's claims for breach of implied warranty against Sloan and negligence against both defendants, arguing that implied warranties under the Sale of Goods Act require privity of contract and that pure economic loss from non-dangerous, shoddy goods is not recoverable in negligence.

The court granted the defendants' motion, striking both the implied warranty claim against Sloan and the negligence claims against both defendants, affirming that privity is required for implied warranties under the SGA and that economic loss for non-dangerous goods is not recoverable in negligence.

OCHC was granted leave to amend its pleading regarding negligent misrepresentation.