William Bradley Hanna

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a December 2025 decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

Following the vacating of an ex parte order due to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, the respondent sought costs of the motion.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, declining to award a higher scale as the applicant's conduct was not reprehensible.

The court allowed recovery for the value of work performed by the respondent's US counsel in drafting affidavits, noting that while foreign counsel cannot charge legal fees in Ontario, a fair and reasonable amount for the preparation work should be indemnified to avoid a windfall to the applicant.

Costs were fixed at $80,000 all-inclusive.

The applicant, an automotive manufacturer, sought an interim injunction to prevent the respondent supplier from ceasing delivery of component parts to its Windsor plant amid a pricing dispute.

The respondent challenged the court's jurisdiction, relying on an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the applicant's standard terms requiring all suits to be brought in Michigan.

The court found the clause clear and applicable, and held that the applicant failed to show 'strong cause' to avoid its own standard terms.

The court declined jurisdiction and vacated the previously granted ex parte interim injunction.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Committee of Adjustment decision granting the respondent's application for a minor variance under the Planning Act.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable due to a lack of responsive reasons and procedural fairness breaches.

The Divisional Court found that the applicant had standing to seek judicial review despite recent legislative amendments removing its statutory right of appeal.

The court quashed the decision, holding that the Committee's reasons, which merely recited statutory language, failed to meet the requirements of Vavilov and s. 45(8.1) of the Planning Act.

The matter was remitted to the Committee for a determination de novo.

The defendant was successful on a motion for security for costs and sought partial indemnity costs of $41,616.76.

The plaintiff argued the requested costs were excessive and suggested $25,000 in the cause.

The court agreed the defendant's requested costs were excessive, noting the defendant was only partially successful in the quantum of security ordered.

The court fixed the defendant's costs at $25,000, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff purchaser and defendant vendor entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property.

The transaction failed to close after a dispute over zoning conditions and disclosure of OMB mediation details.

The plaintiff sued for specific performance and moved for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1.01.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that while there was a triable issue regarding an interest in land, the equities favoured the defendant because the property was not unique and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The court also dismissed the defendant's motion, as the plaintiff's claim was not frivolous or vexatious.

The respondent, an Anishnaabe elder, commenced a human rights application alleging that the use of the 'Cleveland Indians' team name and logo at the Rogers Centre constituted discrimination.

The applicant brought a motion challenging the tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the matter fell under federal trademark law.

The tribunal issued an interim decision dismissing the motion.

The applicant sought judicial review of this interim decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, finding that it did not raise a true question of jurisdiction and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the administrative proceedings.

The applicant, a 17-year-old with autism, sought judicial review of the respondent's decision denying him eligibility for government-funded Intensive Behaviour Intervention (IBI) therapy.

The applicant alleged that the respondent lost medical records, failed to follow assessment guidelines, and made an unreasonable decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of lost records or procedural unfairness.

The court held that the respondent's clinical assessment was conducted in accordance with the applicable guidelines and its conclusion that the applicant was not at the severe end of the autism spectrum was reasonable.

Although the application was technically moot due to changes in the government's autism funding policy, the court addressed the merits to dispose of the applicant's unfounded allegations against the respondent's staff.

The applicant beer distributor sought an interlocutory injunction preventing the respondent brewer from terminating a long-standing licence agreement granting exclusive Canadian distribution rights for certain beer brands.

The respondent issued a termination notice based on the applicant’s failure to meet contractual volume targets after an amendment to the licence agreement terminated automatically when industry regulatory changes did not occur.

The court held that serious issues existed regarding the continued effect of a contractual waiver of termination rights and whether the respondent was required to engage in good faith negotiations before exercising termination rights.

The court also found that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm through disruption of its product portfolio, damage to customer relationships, and potential harm to brand equity.

Balancing the parties’ respective harms and favouring preservation of the status quo pending trial, the court granted the interlocutory injunction.

The respondents brought a motion to strike a paragraph of the notice of appeal.

The appellants sought to raise a new argument on appeal that a six-year limitation period applied under the transition provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002, despite conceding a two-year limitation period before the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the motion and struck the paragraph, finding that permitting the new ground of appeal would cause prejudice to the moving party, who would have developed a different evidentiary record had the argument been raised below.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing their action as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellants knew or ought to have known the basis of their claim by April 11, 2005, at the latest.

As the action was not commenced until October 31, 2007, more than two years after the claim was discovered, the appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of an action alleging misrepresentations relating to the establishment of a Mitsubishi dealership, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $325,000 after successfully obtaining summary judgment dismissing the claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act and lacking evidentiary merit.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principle of reasonableness, including access to justice concerns discussed in appellate authority.

While the defendants’ legal work was substantial and effective, certain disbursements and the overall magnitude of the claim were considered excessive.

The court therefore reduced the claimed amount and fixed costs at $150,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for damages arising from an alleged franchise agreement and negligent misrepresentations regarding the viability of a Mitsubishi dealership.

The court found that the plaintiffs' action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the claim more than two years before commencing the action.

Furthermore, the court held that the alleged misrepresentations were forward-looking forecasts, which are not actionable, and that the entire agreement and release clauses in the dealer agreement provided a complete defence.

The action was dismissed, and the defendant's counterclaim for an unpaid debt was allowed.

The appellant, a user of the drug Paxil, brought a proposed class action against the respondent pharmaceutical companies alleging abuse of process, conspiracy, and waiver of tort.

The appellant claimed the respondents misused the Notice of Compliance proceedings under the Patent Act to delay the entry of a cheaper generic equivalent into the market, forcing consumers to pay supra-competitive prices.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim, finding it disclosed no viable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, concluding that the appellant was not a party to the legal process initiated by the respondents, the respondents' predominant purpose was to advance their own economic interests rather than injure the appellant, and there was no predicate wrongdoing to support a waiver of tort claim.