Thomas R. Lederer

The plaintiff, United Soils Management Ltd., brought a motion for leave to examine the Mayor of Whitchurch-Stouffville as a non-party witness, pursuant to Rule 39.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

This motion arose within the context of the defendant, Katie Mohammed's, anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation claim under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court considered the plaintiff's diligence in bringing the motion and the discretionary nature of granting leave, noting the legislative intent for anti-SLAPP motions to be summary.

The court found the plaintiff's pattern of interlocutory motions, including this one, to be contrary to the summary nature of anti-SLAPP proceedings and dismissed the motion for leave to examine the Mayor.

The plaintiff, Joseph Nemeth, sought summary judgment in an employment termination case against Hatch Ltd. Nemeth argued that the termination clause in his employment contract was ambiguous and attempted to contract out of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, particularly regarding severance and benefits, thus entitling him to common law reasonable notice.

The court, following its prior decision in Cook v. Hatch Ltd., found the termination clause unambiguous and compliant with the Act, rejecting the argument that silence on severance and benefits constituted an attempt to contract out.

The court also distinguished Singh v. Qualified Metal Fabricators Ltd., which had found ambiguity in a similar clause.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and summary judgment was granted to the defendant, dismissing the action.

The defendant landlord brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for wrongful termination of a commercial lease.

The defendant argued that the corporate plaintiff was not a party to the lease and the personal plaintiff could not claim damages suffered by the corporation under the rule in Foss v. Harbottle.

The court found that while the current pleadings did not support an independent claim for the personal plaintiff, dismissing the action would allow the defendant to escape liability for an alleged breach.

The court adjourned the motion for two months to allow the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim.

The plaintiffs, Harold Gerstel and 2102503 Ontario Inc., sought to remove arbitrators, set aside an arbitration agreement, and lift a stay of court proceedings in a business dispute that had been referred to a rabbinical court (Beis Din) for binding arbitration.

The plaintiffs alleged bias on the part of the arbitrators and unfair treatment, particularly regarding the production of financial records and communications between the arbitrators and the defendants.

The court dismissed the motions, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias or breach of equality and fairness, emphasizing judicial restraint in interfering with community-based arbitration processes, while affirming the court's residual jurisdiction to ensure fundamental principles are upheld.

The plaintiff employee brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, arguing that the termination clause in his employment contract was void for failing to explicitly reference severance pay and benefits, and for ambiguously referring to 'applicable labour legislation'.

The court held that the termination clause was valid and enforceable.

It found that the clause did not attempt to contract out of the Employment Standards Act minimums, and that silence regarding severance and benefits did not invalidate the clause.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendant employer, and the action was dismissed.

The City of Toronto moved for summary judgment to dismiss an action brought by the plaintiffs for injuries sustained by Selome Aemoro Walelegne after tripping on a sidewalk discontinuity.

The court applied the Hyrniak v. Mauldin framework and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The City met its minimum maintenance standards for patrolling and inspecting sidewalks under O. Reg. 612/06 and was protected by the statutory defences in the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as it took reasonable steps and could not reasonably have known about the specific defect.

Furthermore, the plaintiff was found to have contributed to her own injury by walking off the intended path.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action dismissed.

The plaintiff corporation, solely owned by the daughter of the deceased, brought an action against the deceased's estate to recover $1,070,000.

The deceased had incorporated the plaintiff to purchase a commercial property for his daughter.

After the property was sold for a profit, the deceased withdrew the funds from the plaintiff's bank account for his own use.

The estate argued the plaintiff was a bare trustee and the deceased was the beneficial owner.

The court found no documentary or credible testimonial evidence of a trust, concluding the corporation and its funds belonged entirely to the daughter.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for the full amount taken.

The applicant commenced a professional negligence action against his accountants.

He sought a confidential meeting with lawyers from Blakes, who had provided tax advice to him and the accountants jointly.

Blakes refused a private meeting, citing a duty of candour to the accountants.

The applicant brought an application to compel a confidential meeting.

The court noted jurisdictional concerns about enforcing Rules of Professional Conduct via an independent application.

The parties agreed to a compromise allowing non-party examinations of the Blakes lawyers.

The court ordered the examinations to proceed within the underlying action pursuant to Rule 31.10.

The plaintiff purchased a frozen fish business from the defendants, which included a non-competition clause.

The plaintiff subsequently hired one of the defendants as a general manager, but later terminated him for alleged financial improprieties.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction, alleging the defendants were competing in the white fish market in breach of the non-competition clause.

The court found the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case of breach, that irreparable harm would result without an injunction, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was granted.

The plaintiff First Nation brought an action against Canada and Ontario for failing to set aside a reserve for them under Treaty No. 9 in 1906.

The parties agreed that a reserve should have been set aside.

The threshold issue at trial was determining the 'crystallization date'—the point in time at which the band's population should be assessed to calculate the size of the reserve.

The plaintiffs argued the population should be determined as of the date the reserve is actually set aside or the date of the court's declaration.

The Crown argued the population should be determined as of the date the treaty was made.

The court held that the common intention of the parties, based on the text of the treaty and its historical context, was that reserves were to be set aside and sized according to the population at the time the treaty was made.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his treating physician's finding that he lacked capacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medication and upholding a Community Treatment Order.

The appellant argued the Board erred in its capacity finding and that the criteria for the order were not met, specifically alleging a failure to provide prompt rights advice.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the correctness standard to questions of law and reasonableness to mixed fact and law, ultimately finding no error in the Board's determinations.

The appeals were dismissed.

The plaintiff tenant brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant landlords after a dispute over the renewal of a commercial lease.

The tenant exercised its option to renew via SMS message, which the landlords ignored, instead demanding alleged unpaid additional rent.

The parties reached a settlement to arbitrate the rent, but the landlords breached the settlement, locked the tenant out, and caused the tenant to lose a $140,000 sale of its business.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the landlords breached the lease and settlement, and awarded $183,837.49 in damages, including $20,000 in punitive damages for the landlords' egregious conduct.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages arising from a slip and fall in the stairwell of the defendant's apartment building.

Both plaintiffs died before trial.

The plaintiffs' estate sought to rely on the deceased plaintiff's examination for discovery transcript, which stated the stairs were wet.

The court admitted the transcript but found it was outweighed by the direct, credible evidence of the defendant's representatives who inspected the stairs shortly after the fall and found them clean and dry.

The action was dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof.

The moving party, a women's shelter, brought a motion to strike the responding party's negligence claim on the basis that the limitation period had expired.

The deceased was sexually assaulted on the shelter's premises by a third party and later murdered in an unrelated incident.

The court held that the recent amendments to the Limitations Act, 2002, which eliminated limitation periods for proceedings based on sexual assault, applied to negligence claims against third parties who owed a duty of care to the victim.

The court found sufficient proximity to establish a prima facie duty of care and dismissed the motion to strike.

This endorsement addresses a motion brought by Robert Bilich, a non-party, seeking to enforce Revised Minutes of Settlement from a previously settled trial and to obtain declarations regarding alleged misappropriation of funds by the defendants.

The settlement required the defendants to provide quarterly accountings to investors.

Bilich, claiming to represent an investor, alleged non-compliance.

The court found that the defendants had belatedly provided an accounting, thereby purging any potential contempt.

The court dismissed Bilich's motions, refusing an adjournment for cross-examination, as his true intent was to re-open settled trial issues and pursue allegations of misappropriation, for which he lacked status.

The court affirmed the defendants' ongoing obligation to provide quarterly accountings to investors.

The applicant sought damages for breach of contract, tracing orders, constructive trust, equitable lien, and piercing the corporate veil against the corporate and individual respondents.

The court dismissed the application, finding that service was not properly effected under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the application was not a suitable vehicle for the claims as the contract was not founded on an "instrument" as required by Rule 14.05(3)(d), and the claims against the individual respondent for independent tort required an action and possibly a trial, not an application.

The court also declined to grant execution remedies without proper service and an opportunity for the respondents to participate.

This decision addresses five separate motions brought by the plaintiffs to reinstate administratively dismissed actions or extend time for filing/serving Statements of Claim, after 14 years of litigation with minimal progress.

The court dismissed all motions, finding that the plaintiffs had abused the process by repeatedly attempting to re-litigate issues already decided, misusing court procedures for investigative purposes rather than advancing claims, consistently ignoring court orders and timetables, and failing to properly manage their claims and expert evidence.

The court relied on its inherent jurisdiction to manage its process, concluding that the delay was inordinate and inexplicable, and that "enough is enough."

The applicants sought to set aside a sheriff's sale of their property, which was conducted to satisfy outstanding costs awards.

They alleged the sale was improvident, the required process was not followed, and they did not receive proper notice.

The court found that the sale price was not improvident based on a realtor's opinion, the auction was properly conducted, and the applicants had actual notice of the sale despite a minor procedural non-compliance with posting requirements.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant, MCAP Financial Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action, which alleged that MCAP acted improvidently in selling a mortgaged property under power of sale.

The court found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the reasonableness of MCAP's conduct in the sale process, including the property valuation methodology, the consideration of environmental remediation tax advantages, the marketing efforts, and the evaluation of multiple offers.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

This is an appeal from a Master's order concerning two issues: security for costs and solicitor-client privilege over certain emails.

The security for costs issue was resolved by agreement during the appeal.

The primary issue remaining was whether emails sent by the plaintiff to his solicitor using a corporate email account were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The court upheld the Master's decision, finding that the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that solicitor-client privilege, being a fundamental and substantive principle in Canadian law, was not waived despite the inadvertent disclosure of the emails.

The court distinguished solicitor-client privilege from general privacy expectations and rejected the application of American jurisprudence due to its narrower interpretation of privilege.