Terrence L.J. Patterson

The defendant, The Corporation of the County of Essex, brought a motion requesting the plaintiff, Josef Stonehouse, attend a further neuropsychological assessment and for raw test data from the plaintiff's neuropsychologist.

The court denied the motion, finding that leave was required under Rule 48.04(1) as the trial record had been filed and parties had previously agreed they were ready for trial.

Even if leave were granted, the defendant failed to establish the necessity of the further examination, having made a strategic decision to delay and not comply with previous timetables, and considering potential prejudice and "practice effects" on the plaintiff.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time for service of its Statement of Claim under the Construction Lien Act.

The court granted the extension nunc pro tunc, finding that the default was not intentional, there was no inordinate delay, and the delay would not prejudice a fair trial.

However, because the motion was necessitated by the plaintiff's inadvertence, costs were awarded to the defendants.

In a class action regarding allegedly illegal bingo licensing fees, the defendants brought a motion to lift an interim protection order that prevented them from sharing the identities of class members who opted out with their municipal clients.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing that revealing the identities could harm the charities' fundraising efforts.

The court applied the Sierra Club test and found insufficient evidence of a serious threat to the commercial interests of the potential class members.

Emphasizing the open court principle, the court granted the defendants' motion and lifted the protection order.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a protracted action where the defendants were found to have improperly distrained and illegally used the plaintiffs' trade fixtures for eight years, resulting in an award of over $100,000 in damages and $80,000 in exemplary damages.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $95,000 for costs, plus HST and disbursements of $10,491.42, applying partial indemnity up to an August 11, 2015 offer and substantial indemnity thereafter, guided by the principle that costs awards should be fair and reasonable.

The plaintiffs operated a driving range on the defendants' golf course as tenants at will.

After a dispute, the defendants terminated the lease and prevented the plaintiffs from removing their equipment and structures, continuing to use them for eight years.

The court found the items were trade fixtures, which are exempt from distress when a lease is terminated.

The defendants were found liable for the tort of conversion and ordered to pay the market value of the fixtures plus exemplary damages for their continued use.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time for service of its Statement of Claim, which was granted *nunc pro tunc* to comply with s. 53(2) of the Construction Lien Act.

The court found the default was not intentional, there was no inordinate delay, and the delay would not affect a fair trial.

Despite the plaintiff's success in obtaining the extension, the defendants were awarded costs due to the plaintiff's inadvertence in necessitating the motion.

The plaintiffs brought a contempt motion alleging that the defendants, the City of Windsor and the Town of Tecumseh, breached a January 29, 2016 order regarding an opt-out campaign in a class proceeding.

The alleged breaches involved new radio advertisements and a live interview by the Mayor of Windsor.

The court found that the order's terms were arguably subject to more than one interpretation and that the defendants did not deliberately and willfully breach the order.

The contempt motion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs' request for further disclosure was denied.

The plaintiffs in two certified class actions regarding allegedly illegal bingo licence fees brought a motion to restrict the defendants' multi-media opt-out campaign.

The defendants, the City of Windsor and the Town of Tecumseh, launched an extensive campaign including newspaper ads, websites, and direct mailings, urging potential class members to opt out to save taxpayers from a potential $70 million uninsured damages award.

The court found that while defendants have a right to communicate with class members, the campaign went too far by pitting taxpayers and organizations against each other, creating undue influence.

The court ordered the defendants to add hyperlinks to the class action websites on their materials and directed that class members who had already opted out be given an opportunity to reconsider, but declined to impose broader communication restrictions.

In consolidated family-related proceedings, the court dismissed a self-represented party's attempt to overturn an earlier vexatious litigant order and, in the alternative, granted a fresh application declaring him a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The record disclosed persistent, duplicative, and abusive motions, collateral attacks on witnesses, counsel, and prior rulings, and conduct amounting to harassment and oppression.

The court held that the earlier judge had ample basis to make the order and that, in any event, the current evidentiary record independently justified the same result.

No further proceeding may be instituted or continued by the respondent without leave of a Superior Court judge.

The applicants sought judicial review of a chief building official's decision to issue a building permit for a one storey accessory garage on an undersized beachfront lot lacking street frontage.

The court held the zoning bylaw was ambiguous because the lot did not face a street, making it impossible to determine the front and rear lot lines and applicable setbacks with certainty.

Applying a reasonableness standard and considering the official plan's waterfront aesthetics provisions, the court found the proposed structure was incompatible with the existing character of the area and should not have been permitted.

The decision issuing the permit was rescinded, with no order as to costs.

Sentencing decision following conviction for conspiracy to export ecstasy contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code.

The offender was found to be the mastermind of a scheme to export approximately 57,000 ecstasy pills to the United States.

The court emphasized the need for denunciation and general deterrence in large-scale drug exportation cases, particularly where the drugs target young users and the offender has a related criminal record.

The court rejected arguments for sentence reduction based on disclosure delays and lengthy bail conditions.

A conditional sentence was found inappropriate given the seriousness of the offence and the offender’s leadership role in the conspiracy.

A long‑term employee brought an action for wrongful dismissal and discrimination under the Human Rights Code after being terminated for making threatening remarks toward coworkers when leaving the workplace following a disciplinary meeting.

The employee argued that the threats were the result of an undisclosed mental disability and that the employer should have investigated and accommodated him rather than terminating his employment.

The court held that the employer had no knowledge of the employee’s psychiatric condition at the time and was not required to diagnose or infer a disability.

Given the seriousness of the threats, which constituted workplace violence, the employer was entitled to terminate the employee for just cause in order to protect other staff.

The court concluded that the Human Rights Code did not shield the employee from the consequences of serious misconduct unrelated to any known disability.

The appellant law firm sought leave to appeal a cost order made against it personally under Rule 57.07.

The firm had been removed as counsel for the plaintiff due to a conflict of interest, as another lawyer in the firm was acting for the defendant hospital.

The motion judge found the firm failed to fully disclose the conflict to the plaintiff and maintained an untenable position, causing unnecessary costs.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

The defendants, including the Attorney General of Canada, the CRA, and various Crown prosecutors and CRA investigators, brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' jury notice and various causes of action in a 111-page statement of claim.

The plaintiffs' action arose from a lengthy tax evasion investigation and subsequent criminal charges that were ultimately discharged at a preliminary inquiry.

The court granted the motion, striking the jury notice because the action was against the Crown.

The court also struck the claims for negligence, malicious prosecution, breach of fiduciary duty, Charter breaches, misrepresentation, and conspiracy against the Crown prosecutors and CRA investigators for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, largely due to prosecutorial immunity and the lack of a private law duty of care.

Claims by the accounting firm BDO and Family Law Act claims by the plaintiffs' spouses were also struck.