Veronica Sjolin

The third parties moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third party claim brought by the defendants, Michael Gillis and Julie Joanisse Gillis, against their financial advisors and firm.

The court found that the causes of action arose before and during the defendants’ bankruptcy and thus vested in the trustee in bankruptcy.

The claims were not transferred back to the defendants and were also found to be statute-barred.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the third party claim and struck the action as a nullity.

The appellants, a family, sued a hospital and medical professionals for medical malpractice after their son suffered a severe brain injury at birth.

The trial judge discharged the jury mid-trial and then dismissed the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for discharging the jury, which is a fundamental right.

The reasons were conclusory, did not explain which comments were prejudicial, or why corrective instructions would be insufficient.

The appellate court could not meaningfully review the decision.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' challenge to Western University's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, the university sought partial indemnity costs of $97,721.11.

The applicants argued no costs should be awarded as the case was public interest litigation.

The court rejected this argument, finding the case lacked the exceptional nature required to deviate from the usual costs rules, and noted the applicants were backed by a litigation fund.

The court awarded the university costs fixed at $75,000.

The applicant students sought declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against the respondent university's COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, arguing that the collection of proof of vaccination violated s. 38(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The court found that the university's broad statutory powers authorized the Policy as a 'lawfully authorized activity' and that the collection of proof of vaccination was 'necessary' to properly administer and enforce the mandate.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed two awards from a sole arbitrator in a commercial arbitration regarding a failed real estate project.

The first award granted partial summary judgment dismissing claims related to loan advances as time-barred.

The second award increased the amount of security for costs.

The Superior Court held that the standard of review for commercial arbitrations remains reasonableness under Sattva, as Vavilov did not overrule it in this context.

The court found the arbitrator's decisions on both the limitation period and the security for costs were reasonable and correct, and dismissed the appeals.

The moving parties in a contested estate proceeding sought third-party production from FundEX, a mutual fund dealer where the estate trustee formerly worked as a financial advisor.

The moving parties alleged the estate trustee acted in a conflict of interest by holding dual roles.

FundEX resisted production, arguing Rule 30.10 does not apply to applications.

The court held that because a small claims action had been consolidated with the applications, Rule 30.10 applied.

The court also noted its jurisdiction under Rules 74 and 75 to order third-party production in contested estate matters.

FundEX was ordered to produce its compliance manuals and documents related to a regulatory investigation, but not communications involving the estate trustee, which should be sought from him directly.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting a 13-year-old boy at the YMCA.

The defence sought production of third-party incident reports held by the YMCA documenting other alleged misconduct by the complainant with other men at the facility.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defence failed to meet the "likely relevance" threshold under section 278.3 of the Criminal Code.

The court determined that the records were sought as part of a speculative fishing expedition to portray the complainant as the initiator of sexual activity, relying on impermissible stereotypes and myths about sexual assault victims.