Thomas R. Lederer

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination complaints as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had fabricated letters from co-workers to support her claims and lacked credibility.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, well within its power to control its own process, and protected by a highly deferential standard of review.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review of a decision by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, holding that the applicant must follow the established legislative process and exhaust alternative remedies before seeking judicial review.

The application was quashed without prejudice to the applicant's right to bring a new application for judicial review against the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board within sixty days.

Two applicants sought judicial review of municipal by-laws implementing a volume-based solid waste user fee and associated rebate program introduced by the City of Toronto.

The applicants argued that the waste collection charge was in substance an unlawful tax affecting provincial tax ratio rules and that the rebate constituted an impermissible redistribution of property taxes contrary to the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The court held that the waste charge was a valid user fee because a sufficient nexus existed between the amount collected and the cost of providing waste services.

The court further held that the rebate was properly characterized as a municipal grant authorized under s. 83 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 rather than a tax rebate.

The applications to quash the relevant by-law provisions were dismissed.

A commercial landlord‑tenant dispute arose after the landlord halted renovations at nightclub premises and later began demolition while litigation over an alleged lease breach was pending.

Earlier proceedings determined the tenant had not breached the lease and that the landlord had unreasonably withheld consent to an assignment.

At this damages trial, the court considered whether the landlord was liable for losses during a seven‑month delay period and whether demolition prior to termination established liability for the remainder of the lease term.

The court found the landlord wrongfully expelled the tenant and commenced demolition before termination, thereby destroying the leased premises.

Damages were awarded for the seven‑month period and for the balance of the lease term, but the court declined to award damages for equipment loss due to insufficient proof and the tenant’s failure to mitigate.

Following a successful application contesting a federal election in which the court declared the election null and void due to voting irregularities, the applicant sought $90,000 in costs.

The court considered whether any respondent could properly be characterized as an unsuccessful party responsible for paying those costs.

The successful candidate was found to have done nothing wrong and stood in a similar position to the applicant, while the Chief Electoral Officer maintained neutrality and could not legally take positions favouring any candidate.

Given the public interest nature of the proceeding and the absence of a party properly liable for costs, the court declined to award costs.

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, and the applicant’s security for costs deposit was ordered returned.

The applicant sought a declaration under the Declarations of Death Act, 2002 that a missing individual was dead after disappearing while apparently travelling to a cottage, or alternatively an order declaring the individual an absentee and appointing the applicant as committee of property under the Absentees Act.

The court reviewed the statutory requirements for declaring death before seven years have elapsed, including proof that the individual disappeared in circumstances of peril.

Despite extensive searches, investigations, and evidence of past mental health issues and prior suicidal ideation, the court found insufficient evidence that the disappearance occurred in circumstances of peril within the meaning of the statute.

The court emphasized the legislature’s intention that declarations of death be made cautiously and only when statutory conditions are clearly met.

The request for a declaration of death was refused, but the court declared the missing person an absentee and appointed the applicant as committee of property.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to enforce compliance with its declaration against a commercial unit owner and its tenant, who were selling fresh meat and poultry in violation of another unit's exclusive use rights.

The respondents argued that the application was premature because the dispute had not been mediated pursuant to s. 132 of the Condominium Act, 1998, and claimed a settlement had been reached at a prior meeting.

The court found that no settlement was reached and held that the mandatory mediation provisions under s. 132 do not apply to disputes involving tenants or occupants.

The court ordered the respondents to comply with the declaration and cease selling fresh meat and poultry.

Following a trial in a commercial dispute arising from an agreement of purchase and sale for a property intended to be converted into a motion capture studio, the successful plaintiff sought costs of approximately $191,895 including fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff relied on Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that an offer to settle entitled it to substantial indemnity costs after the date of the offer.

The court found the offer to settle was not served within the timeframe required by Rule 49.10 and the offer itself was not provided to the court.

While the judgment exceeded the amount of the offer, the court declined to award elevated costs and instead assessed costs on a partial indemnity basis globally.

Considering the length of the thirteen‑day trial and the involvement of expert witnesses, the court awarded reduced total costs.

Following a civil action concerning a dispute over the proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned house, the plaintiff obtained judgment for a portion of the claimed amount.

The plaintiff then sought costs of the action on a partial indemnity basis.

The court noted that although there were settlement discussions, none of the offers complied with Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore did not justify elevated costs.

While the court accepted the reasonableness of the hourly rate and time spent, it considered the claimed amount somewhat high given the value and nature of the dispute.

The court exercised its discretion and awarded reduced partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal after signing a release at the time of termination.

The employer relied on the signed release to bar the claim.

The court applied the unconscionability framework from Titus v. William F. Cooke Enterprises Inc. and held that the release was unenforceable due to a grossly improvident settlement, lack of independent legal advice, a significant imbalance of bargaining power at termination, and the employer’s conduct in presenting the release in a misleading and presumptive manner.

After setting aside the release, the court assessed reasonable notice under the Bardal factors.

Considering the employee’s nearly twenty years of service, age, and limited employment prospects, the court fixed reasonable notice at twelve months.

The court determined costs following the dismissal of a defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff sought costs on a full indemnity scale or alternatively on a partial indemnity scale, arguing the motion should never have been brought.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, noting that summary judgment jurisprudence was still developing following amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure and the decision in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch.

While the court found the time spent by counsel generally reasonable given the factual complexity and cross‑examinations, it concluded the amount sought exceeded what the defendant could reasonably have expected to pay.

The plaintiff was awarded $65,000 in fees and disbursements.

The applicant, an unsuccessful candidate in a federal election decided by a plurality of 26 votes, brought an application to contest the election under s. 524(1)(b) of the Canada Elections Act.

The applicant argued that irregularities in voter registration and vouching affected the result.

The court found that the onus was on the applicant to prove on a balance of probabilities that irregularities occurred and affected the result.

The court identified 79 votes that were cast irregularly due to failures in registration and vouching procedures.

Because the number of irregular votes exceeded the plurality, the court declared the election null and void.

The plaintiff purchased a building from the defendant to use as a motion capture studio.

The agreement required the defendant to complete specific structural renovations.

The defendant commenced work without a building permit, resulting in an order to comply from the city, and ultimately failed to complete the work.

The plaintiff took over the project, hired professionals to obtain permits and finish the renovations, and sued for completion costs and lost profits due to the delay.

The court found the defendant in breach of contract and awarded the plaintiff damages for completion costs, recurring lost profits, and a lost extraordinary business opportunity, while allowing a small portion of the defendant's counterclaim for agreed extras.

The plaintiffs, senior members of the government of Bermuda, brought a motion to strike certain paragraphs of the defendant's Statement of Defence in a defamation action.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendant architect falsified cheques to make it appear they received kickbacks from a construction project.

The impugned paragraphs detailed the history of the construction project, including the selection of the contractor and ongoing payment disputes.

The court dismissed the motion for the most part, finding the paragraphs were relevant and had potential probative value in defending against the allegations of fraud, though two specific portions were struck on consent.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as statute-barred, the defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity scale for both the motion and the action.

The plaintiff did not object to the costs for the motion but argued that Rule 20.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure precluded awarding costs for the action as a whole.

The court rejected that interpretation, holding that the rule does not foreclose costs where a summary judgment motion results in dismissal of the action.

Objections to discovery-related fees and preparation for trial charges were also dismissed.

The court found the defendants’ bill of costs reasonable and awarded the full amount requested.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff’s action to recover funds advanced during a former romantic relationship was barred by the applicable limitation period.

The dispute concerned whether substantial funds used for the renovation of the defendant’s law office constituted a loan or a gift and whether the defendant, a lawyer who had professional dealings with the plaintiff’s business, owed and breached a fiduciary duty.

The court held that the nature of the parties’ personal and professional relationship, the characterization of the transactions, and the existence of any fiduciary duty or conflict of interest required credibility findings that could not be made on a summary judgment motion.

The court also noted that the resolution of these issues could affect whether a limitation period applied.

The motion for summary judgment was therefore dismissed.

Following the refusal of an interlocutory injunction sought by the landlord applicants to compel a hotel operator to continue operating a hotel under a particular brand, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicants argued that an indemnity clause in a lease entitled them to full indemnity costs from a former tenant alleged to have breached the lease.

The court held that the indemnity clause did not permit the landlord to recover litigation costs from a prior tenant where the present tenant supported the motion and where the lease’s procedures regarding a change of operating name had not been followed.

Even if the clause applied, the court would decline to exercise its discretion to award costs to the applicants.

Costs were awarded instead to the successful respondent hotel operator.

The plaintiff lender brought a motion for summary judgment to recover loan funds advanced to a corporation controlled by the individual defendant.

The individual defendant admitted in criminal proceedings that he misused the loan funds and arranged the murder of the lender’s principal when he could not repay the debt.

The court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted judgment for the outstanding loan amount.

The court pierced the corporate veil, finding the corporation and the individual defendant were interchangeable for purposes of the loan and that the corporation functioned as a façade for improper conduct.

Punitive damages were refused because the action was grounded in breach of contract and no independent actionable wrong associated with the breach justified such damages.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) and Rule 21.01(3)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and constituting an abuse of process.

The self‑represented plaintiff attempted to sue federal officials and government counsel following unsuccessful tax litigation relating to a reassessment request and Canada Child Tax Benefit claim.

The court found the pleaded causes of action, including negligence, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, misfeasance in public office, breach of duty of good faith, and malicious falsehood, lacked the essential elements required in law.

The action was also an impermissible attempt to relitigate matters already determined by the courts.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The applicants sought costs following earlier proceedings concerning the respondent declarant’s repeated failure to comply with obligations under the Condominium Act, 1998 and with prior court orders requiring disclosure of information to the condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to file responding submissions despite being granted time to do so.

The court reviewed the applicants’ bill of costs and found the requested amount reasonable under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also considered whether additional monetary relief was available under the Condominium Act, 1998.

Costs were awarded to the applicants along with an additional statutory amount due to the declarant’s failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with statutory disclosure obligations.