Thomas J. McEwen

The plaintiff purchased software from the defendant, who represented that the customer relationship management (CRM) and enterprise resource planning (ERP) modules would fully integrate.

The software failed to integrate due to character limitations and suffered from other functional defects.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the Sale of Goods Act.

The court found the individual defendant personally liable, as he had not contracted through his corporation.

The court held the defendant liable for negligent misrepresentation and breach of warranty, assessing the residual value of the defective software at 33.33% and awarding the plaintiff $126,932.35 in damages.

Following a civil proceeding, the court addressed costs on consent of the parties.

The successful party was awarded a lump sum for costs inclusive of fees and disbursements.

The court also ordered prejudgment interest on two damages components beginning on specified dates at the statutory rate.

Post‑judgment interest was ordered on the full judgment amount.

The endorsement formalized the agreed financial consequences of the judgment.

The court determined costs following an earlier decision declaring two individuals vexatious litigants and dismissing a related civil action.

The applicant sought substantial costs but failed to provide supporting dockets or disbursement records.

The court assessed costs based on the nature and length of the proceedings, including a two-day application and multiple motions brought during the hearing.

Costs were awarded to the successful applicant for the vexatious litigant application and to the defendants for dismissal of the civil action.

The court ordered specific amounts payable by the respondents, reflecting differing levels of responsibility and success.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for compensatory and punitive damages arising from an investment scheme.

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract for failure to refund his investment, as well as fraud and conspiracy to defraud.

The court granted partial summary judgment against the corporate defendant for $90,000, finding a binding agreement to refund the 2007 investment.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment on the fraud and conspiracy claims, concluding that a full appreciation of the conflicting evidence and credibility issues required a trial.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal against her former employer.

The employer unilaterally altered the plaintiff's job description from office manager to accountant and revoked her ability to attend bonus trips and partnership meetings.

The plaintiff rejected the new terms, and the employer subsequently terminated her.

The court found that the plaintiff did not resign and that the employer did not have just cause for dismissal.

The court held that the employer repudiated the employment contract by unilaterally changing fundamental terms.

The plaintiff was awarded $256,902.93 in damages, representing the balance of her salary under a five-year contract and the value of a 15% ownership interest promised in the contract.

The respondent sought costs following dismissal of the applicant municipality’s application on the basis that the Ontario Municipal Board was the more appropriate forum.

The municipality argued that no costs should be awarded because the court did not determine the merits of the dispute and the matter might proceed before the Board.

The court rejected that submission, holding that the municipality chose to bring the proceeding in the Superior Court and the application was dismissed.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the respondent, though reduced due to excessive fees and some duplication.

The court fixed costs and disbursements payable within 60 days.

The plaintiff and defendants were neighbours involved in a property dispute over a shared walkway, a privacy screen, and a hedge located near their property line.

The plaintiff claimed ownership of these features through adverse possession, arguing her predecessors in title had exclusively possessed the area.

The court dismissed the adverse possession claim, finding the predecessors' use was cooperative and permissive, not adverse.

However, the court awarded the plaintiff $7,700 in special, general, and punitive damages for the defendants' highhanded and oppressive conduct in trespassing to remove a shared wooden fence and installing a gate that opened onto the plaintiff's property.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim by an estate seeking repayment of common expenses allegedly owed by a former common-law partner pursuant to a verbal agreement.

The estate asserted that the deceased had paid the partner’s share of expenses during cohabitation on the understanding she would later repay him once disability benefits were received.

The court held that any such arrangement constituted a domestic contract under the Family Law Act and was unenforceable because it was not in writing as required by s. 55(1).

Arguments that the parties were not spouses, that their disabilities prevented written agreements, and that the statute had not been pleaded were rejected.

Summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend his statement of claim and to continue a stay of enforcement of a summary judgment obtained by the defendants in a related mortgage action.

The proposed amendments included allegations of forged documents by a former employee of the defendants in connection with investment transactions.

The court granted leave to amend, holding that limitation issues could be pleaded by the defendants and that the allegations were not clearly irrelevant or barred by res judicata.

However, applying Rule 20.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court declined to continue a full stay of the prior judgment, finding only a tenuous connection between the investment claim and the mortgage debt, uncertainty about the merits and damages of the plaintiff’s claim, and potential prejudice to the defendants.

The stay was partially lifted, requiring payment of $400,000 toward the judgment.

Following earlier reasons for decision, the court addressed procedural issues relating to further written submissions and the scheduling of costs submissions.

One party advised that an interim endorsement requesting additional submissions regarding a prior judicial decision had not been received.

The court provided an opportunity to make submissions, but no response was received within the extended timeline.

The court therefore closed the record for further submissions and directed the parties to proceed with written costs submissions on a specified timetable.

The applicants, a public hospital and its foundation, applied for a property tax exemption for the foundation's offices, arguing they shared an identity or patrimony with the hospital.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the foundation was a separate corporate entity with its own governance, objects, and funding, and did not share a sufficient identity or patrimony with the hospital to qualify for the public hospital exemption under the Assessment Act.

Following release of reasons in a prior motion, the court invited submissions on costs.

The plaintiff and defendants consented that the costs of the motion would be assessed by the trial judge in the cause rather than determined immediately.

Two non-parties involved in the motion waived any entitlement to costs.

The court ordered that no costs were payable to those non-parties.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding her incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic and thyroid medication under the Health Care Consent Act.

She argued the Board overlooked evidence suggesting she had agreed to treatment shortly before the hearing.

The court held that the Board’s determination of incapacity was a question of mixed fact and law subject to a reasonableness standard.

Reviewing the full evidentiary record, the court found overwhelming evidence that the appellant could neither understand relevant treatment information nor appreciate the consequences of refusing treatment.

The Board’s decision was reasonable and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant municipality sought a declaration that a developer had no right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board from council’s refusal to approve an official plan amendment redesignating employment lands to mixed use areas.

The court considered whether it should determine the jurisdictional issue or defer to the tribunal.

The court held that although it possessed concurrent jurisdiction, the tribunal had broader expertise in interpreting official plans and planning legislation.

The court therefore declined jurisdiction and dismissed the application, finding the tribunal to be the more appropriate forum to determine the appeal rights under the Planning Act.

The defendants sought relief from a non-disclosure agreement and production of documents and financial statements to support a pleaded defence in a debt action.

The responding party and non-parties resisted production on relevance grounds and requested confidentiality protection if disclosure were ordered.

The court held the pleaded defence raised issues making the requested materials relevant and ordered production.

Applying the Sierra Club framework, the court granted a sealing order over the NDA documents and financial statements, limited to preserve openness and subject to reconsideration by the trial judge.

On a summary judgment motion, a city employee sought dismissal of a claim alleging damages for disclosure of personal information contrary to privacy legislation.

The court held that a bare allegation of breach of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not disclose an independent civil cause of action absent pleaded negligence or another actionable wrong.

The court also found the defendant acted in good faith in carrying out municipal duties and therefore fell within statutory immunity under s. 391 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The action was dismissed as disclosing no cause of action and as statute barred, with costs payable to the moving party.

The court heard a motion to dismiss a civil action and an application under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act seeking to declare two individuals vexatious litigants.

The plaintiff had commenced numerous proceedings against the defendants and others, including judges, court staff, counsel, and family members, arising largely from family litigation concerning access to a child.

The statement of claim alleging false statements and misconduct was found to contain bare allegations without material facts and was struck under the Rules of Civil Procedure for failing to disclose a cause of action.

Reviewing the extensive history of litigation, unpaid costs orders, repeated unsuccessful appeals, and abusive courtroom conduct, the court concluded that the respondents had persistently instituted vexatious proceedings.

Orders were made restricting both respondents from instituting or continuing proceedings in Ontario courts without leave, and staying existing proceedings until outstanding costs were satisfied.