Whitaker

In an estate litigation matter challenging the validity of a will, two individuals brought a motion to be added as applicants, and the respondent brought a motion for security for costs.

The court granted leave to add the new parties, finding no prejudice to the respondents that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for security for costs, noting that in estate matters, such orders are rarely granted based solely on an applicant residing outside Ontario unless the claim is frivolous or vexatious.

The plaintiffs brought a medical negligence action against the defendant obstetrician following the birth of a child who suffered a catastrophic brain injury resulting in severe cerebral palsy.

The injury was caused by an occult cord prolapse during delivery.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendant failed to recognize risk factors, failed to obtain informed consent, and negligently proceeded with a vacuum-assisted delivery in the delivery room rather than the operating room.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendant met the standard of care in his assessment of risk factors, obtained valid consent, and appropriately exercised his clinical judgment in proceeding with the vacuum in response to a non-reassuring fetal heart rate.

Furthermore, the court found that the cord prolapse and resulting injury would have occurred regardless of the defendant's interventions.

The applicants, who were charged with various provincial hunting and fishing offences, brought an application in the Superior Court for a writ of prohibition to stay the proceedings in the Ontario Court of Justice and for an order of mandamus to compel the Crown to consult and accommodate their asserted aboriginal title.

The Superior Court dismissed the applications, holding that constitutional and aboriginal rights defences must be raised in the court having jurisdiction over the charges (the Ontario Court of Justice).

The court also found no basis for mandamus as no demand had been refused.

The Attorney General brought a motion for a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, regarding $205,100 in Canadian currency seized by police during a domestic assault arrest.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing the police officers' lay opinion evidence was inadmissible and the Crown failed to establish reasonable grounds.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the currency was proceeds of unlawful activity, noting the money was bundled, tested positive for controlled substances via a canine sniff, and the respondents' explanation for the cash was not credible.

The preservation order was granted.

The applicant commercial landlord locked the respondent tenant out of the premises, alleging breach of lease.

The dispute centered on the interpretation of a rent-free agreement intended to compensate the tenant for renovations.

The court agreed with the tenant's interpretation, finding the tenant was not in default, and alternatively held that the tenant would be entitled to relief against forfeiture.

The court ordered the landlord to restore possession to the tenant, pay compensation for losses resulting from the lockout, and pay fixed costs.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Master's order that set aside a noting in default, struck portions of her statement of claim for sexual harassment and discrimination, and ordered costs against her.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the standard of review for appeals from a Master, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The applicant husband sought to set aside six separation agreements made between 1999 and 2007, claiming he was coerced and controlled by the respondent wife.

He also sought spousal support and an equalization payment.

The court applied the Miglin framework and found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of vulnerability or that the agreements were inconsistent with the Divorce Act.

The court concluded the agreements fell within the range of normative outcomes and dismissed the application.

The plaintiff son sought to propound his father's last will, which left the bulk of the estate to him and only $1,000 to each of his five defendant sisters.

The sisters challenged the will on the grounds of lack of due execution, undue influence, and lack of testamentary capacity, pointing to suspicious circumstances including the son's involvement in arranging the will with an unknown lawyer.

The court found that while suspicious circumstances existed, the son successfully proved on a balance of probabilities that the father had testamentary capacity and knew and approved of the will's contents.

The court ordered that a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a will may issue.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim regarding a parking space, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57, including the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party and the proportionality of the value of the parking space in dispute.

The defendants were awarded costs fixed at $28,000, inclusive of interest and taxes.