Todd L. Archibald

The plaintiff brought a tort action for a motor vehicle collision.

After a jury awarded nominal general damages (less than the statutory deductible) and past loss of income (reduced to zero by collateral benefits), the defendant brought a threshold motion to declare the plaintiff not entitled to non-pecuniary damages.

The court determined the threshold issue was not moot, despite the net zero award, for costs purposes.

The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a permanent serious impairment of an an important physical, mental, or psychological function, largely due to the plaintiff's exaggeration of symptoms and the expert witness's lack of impartiality.

Consequently, the defendant's threshold motion was granted, and the plaintiff's total damages were reduced to zero.

The defendant was deemed the successful party and awarded costs and disbursements.

This judgment concerns a motion to appoint a litigation guardian for the plaintiff, Ms. Huang, in a complex personal injury action that originated from a 2000 motor vehicle accident.

The court considered medical assessments and Ms. Huang's demonstrated inability to understand legal proceedings, settlement offers, and to effectively instruct counsel or represent herself.

Despite Ms. Huang's opposition, the court found her to be a person under disability, mentally incapable of representing herself in the litigation due to a Major Depressive Disorder.

Consequently, the motion was granted, and the Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as her litigation guardian.

The defendant, Anciento M. Braga, brought a motion for a capacity assessment of the plaintiff, She He Huang, under s. 16(1) of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

The court considered Ms. Huang's history of dismissing multiple counsel, rejecting significant settlement offers, and demonstrating a rudimentary understanding of trial proceedings despite a prior assessment finding capacity.

Citing concerns about her fluctuating mental state and inability to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of her litigation decisions, the court ordered Ms. Huang to undergo a new capacity assessment.

The costs of the assessment and interpreter services were to be borne by Ms. Huang from her income replacement benefits.

The litigation guardian for a plaintiff previously declared a person under disability brought a motion under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking court approval of a settlement dismissing the action without costs.

The plaintiff opposed the settlement and sought removal of the litigation guardian, asserting he was no longer under disability.

The court reviewed psychiatric evidence and the plaintiff’s conduct during the proceedings and found he remained incapable of appreciating the reasonably foreseeable consequences of litigation decisions.

The court further concluded the proposed settlement was in the plaintiff’s best interests given limitation issues, weak evidentiary support, and significant litigation risk.

The motion to remove the litigation guardian was denied and the settlement was approved.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike an action commenced by a corporate religious entity seeking declarations regarding the removal of a bishop and a church council member from ecclesiastical positions.

The court considered whether the corporate plaintiff had private law standing to seek declaratory relief concerning religious appointments and governance within the church.

It held that the corporation’s objects did not give it a legal interest in determining who held ecclesiastical offices or church administrative roles.

Because the dispute concerned the personal rights of individuals within a religious organization rather than the corporation’s legal rights or property interests, the corporation lacked standing.

The statement of claim was struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

A former employee of a digital cinema company misappropriated proprietary 2D to 3D conversion software and confidential information while still employed and used it to establish competing businesses in China.

The court found breaches of the duty of good faith and fidelity, misuse of confidential information and trade secrets, misappropriation of a corporate opportunity, and the tort of conversion.

The defendants, most of whom were noted in default, used the stolen technology to win a theatre project and compete in the digital cinema market.

The court awarded damages reflecting the minimum cost of developing the stolen technology, disgorgement of profits from the misappropriated project, punitive damages, and substantial costs.

The offender was convicted after trial of possession of cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiracy to traffic cocaine under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The case arose from a large-scale police investigation into multi‑kilogram drug trafficking in the Toronto area, during which the offender negotiated the sale of three kilograms of cocaine and was later found in possession of additional multi‑kilogram quantities of methamphetamine and thousands of MDMA pills.

The court characterized the offender as a high‑level commercial trafficker and emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as the dominant sentencing principles for large‑scale drug trafficking.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record, strong family and community support, and evidence of rehabilitation potential.

A global sentence of nine years’ imprisonment was imposed, with concurrent sentences on all counts.