William D. Black

This motion concerned the appropriate school enrollment for the parties' four-year-old daughter, Nyla, for Junior Kindergarten.

The applicant father proposed Rose Avenue Junior Public School in downtown Toronto, near the matrimonial home.

The respondent mother proposed Crestview Public School in North York, near her residence where the child spends the majority of her time.

The court, applying the best interests of the child principle and considering factors such as primary caregiver, stability, support networks, and commute times for the child, found in favour of the respondent mother's proposed school.

This trial addressed outstanding issues of child and spousal support following the resolution of parenting and property disputes.

The court determined the applicant's income for support purposes, rejecting his proposed lower figure and "top-up" mechanism, and imputed income to the respondent.

The court ordered ongoing child and spousal support payments based on the determined incomes, with spousal support set between the mid and high range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The decision also calculated and ordered a significant retroactive support payment, and mandated future reviews of support.

The respondent brought a motion seeking the sale of the matrimonial home under the Partition Act.

The applicant opposed, arguing the motion was premature and prejudicial due to outstanding financial disclosure and unresolved equalization issues under the Family Law Act.

The court, while acknowledging the prima facie right to partition, emphasized the nuanced approach required in family law cases.

It found that ordering a sale before full financial and valuation information was available would risk prejudice to the applicant's equalization claim and cause undue hardship.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the respondent to re-bring it after a scheduled settlement conference and expert reports are available.

The court awarded full indemnity costs against the plaintiffs after dismissing their claims, which were found to be statute-barred, subject to res judicata and issue estoppel, abuses of process, and collateral attacks.

The claims were deemed devoid of merit and repetitive of earlier unsuccessful actions.

The court emphasized that the claims should never have been brought, especially for a third time, and that the plaintiffs' conduct, including unsubstantiated allegations, delaying tactics, and unrealistic settlement offers, warranted the highest scale of costs.

The plaintiff entered into an unwritten real estate arrangement orchestrated by a third-party broker, whereby she obtained mortgage financing to purchase a property from power of sale proceedings, allowing the former owner to live there and potentially repurchase it after one year.

When the year expired, the former owner failed to secure financing to repurchase the property.

The court held that the plaintiff retains full title to the property and is entitled to vacant possession.

The court also found that the broker breached his duty of care by failing to document the arrangement or advise the parties to seek legal counsel, making him liable for the plaintiff's costs and for $20,000 to the former owner.

Furthermore, the court ordered the removal of a third mortgage fraudulently registered against the property by another defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recover a $100,000 loan and interest from the defendants, evidenced by a missing promissory note.

The defendants disputed the loan's principal amount, interest rate, and whether Ms. Morrow was a party, also raising a limitations defence based on a 2012 email.

The court found the loan was $100,000 at 8% interest and that both defendants were liable.

The court dismissed the limitations defence, ruling the 2012 email was not a clear and unequivocal demand.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendants, Keysar Nasr and Amal Nasr, moved to set aside a 2009 default judgment obtained by HSBC Bank Canada, arguing that a release executed in 2019 in the context of other litigation (the 2012 and 2014 actions) extinguished the judgment debt.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the release, when interpreted objectively and considering the factual matrix, was not intended to cover the pre-existing 2009 default judgment.

The applicant, 2708266 Ontario Inc. o/a Nelli Construction, sought damages after the respondent, the City of Toronto, improperly failed to award it "Contract B" following a Request for Tender (RFT) process.

The court previously found the City liable for failing to award the contract.

This endorsement addresses the effect of a broad limitation of liability clause (LL Clause) in the RFT.

Applying the three-pronged Tercon test, the court found the LL Clause applied to the circumstances, including post-bid conduct, and was broad enough to preclude liability for damages beyond the costs of preparing the bid.

The court also determined there was no explicit finding of a breach of the duty of good faith as per Wastech, and that public policy did not override the enforcement of the LL Clause.

Consequently, the City was not liable for damages beyond the bid preparation costs, though costs from the initial application were still payable to the applicant.

The applicants, unit owners in a condominium, alleged oppression by the corporate respondent and its directors regarding the conduct of Board elections in 2018 and 2019, particularly concerning proxy handling and candidate disclosure.

The application was converted to a summary hybrid trial.

The court found that the Corporation, through its property manager, acted in a manner that was unfairly prejudicial to and unfairly disregarded the applicants' interests by mishandling their proxies and improperly questioning them during candidate disclosure.

However, the court did not find malice or widespread oppression by the individual directors, characterizing their conduct as sloppy rather than oppressive.

The applicants were awarded nominal damages of $5,000, as their primary relief (changing election outcome) was academic due to the passage of time, and their claimed damages were not quantifiable.

The plaintiff/appellant appealed an Associate Justice's decision refusing to grant a writ of possession for a residential property.

The respondent spouse, who was not on title but claimed rights under the Family Law Act, argued that ongoing enforcement proceedings regarding a second mortgage prevented her from redeeming the first mortgage.

The Superior Court found that the Associate Justice made a palpable and overriding error by conflating the first and second mortgages.

The court held that the spouse had received adequate notice and opportunity to redeem but failed to do so, and ordered the issuance of a writ of possession.

The landlord brought a motion for an interim order requiring the tenants to pay ongoing rent and outstanding arrears of $70,200 pending the final adjudication of the landlord's claim and the tenants' counterclaim for an abatement.

The tenants agreed to pay ongoing rent but argued they should not have to pay the arrears until the matter was resolved.

The court held that tenants are not entitled to unilaterally abate rent prior to a decision on the merits.

The court ordered the tenants to pay ongoing rent and to pay the arrears in six monthly instalments, with 50% of the payments to be held in trust by the landlord's counsel pending final determination.

The defendant employer brought a motion to stay or dismiss the claim of one of the plaintiffs, who resided in Quebec, arguing that Quebec was the more appropriate forum (forum non conveniens).

The plaintiffs, who were all Vice-Presidents of Business Development, brought an action in Ontario for unpaid vacation pay.

Applying the Van Breda factors, the court found that the majority of key witnesses were in Ontario and that separating the Quebec plaintiff's claim would create a risk of multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The motion was dismissed, as the defendant failed to show that Quebec was a clearly more appropriate forum.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to collect on a $500,000 promissory note.

The defendants failed to file responding materials on time, citing a conflict of interest and an internal corporate deadlock, and sought an adjournment on the eve of the motion.

The court refused the adjournment, finding the defendants' internal disputes did not constitute a defence to the debt, and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.

The plaintiff landlord brought an interim motion for the payment of rent pending the hearing of its action to evict the defendant tenants and recover arrears.

The self-represented tenants requested an adjournment on the day of the hearing, citing severe respiratory illness supported by doctors' notes.

Despite concerns about the tenants' history of delay tactics, the court reluctantly granted a brief, peremptory adjournment, ordering the tenants to pay $4,006.00 in partial rent prior to the return date.

The applicant submitted the lowest bid for a City of Toronto sewer and watermain project.

The City disqualified the bid, concluding the applicant lacked the requisite corporate experience because its personnel's experience was gained at a different company.

The City then cancelled and reissued the tender.

The court found the applicant's bid was compliant, a Contract A was formed, and the City breached the contract by cancelling the tender without a valid basis.

However, the court noted the tender's broad limitation of liability clause might preclude expectation damages and requested further submissions on its enforceability, while awarding the applicant costs of the motion.

The plaintiff moved to strike numerous paragraphs of the defendants' statements of defence on the basis of res judicata or abuse of process, arguing the defendants were seeking to re-litigate findings made by the Mining and Lands Tribunal (MLT) regarding a hydroelectric dam approval.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the impugned pleadings fairly responded to the plaintiff's allegations of delay and misfeasance.

Furthermore, the court held that the MLT decision was merely a recommendation to the Minister and not a final judicial decision capable of grounding res judicata.

The motion against the Independent Electricity System Operator was also dismissed as it was not a party to the MLT proceeding.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement of $50,000 all-inclusive reached with the plaintiff's former counsel.

The plaintiff argued the settlement was based on a mistake due to a faulty translation by a paralegal during a phone call with his former counsel.

The court found that a clear and unequivocal settlement was reached and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or injustice that would justify refusing to enforce it.

The motion was granted and the settlement was enforced.

The defendants moved to set aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) granted ex parte to the plaintiff.

The CPL was registered on title to a property owned by the defendants.

The plaintiff's underlying claim alleged that the defendants fraudulently replaced his stepfather's will to divert estate proceeds.

The plaintiff sought the CPL because the property was the only known asset to satisfy a potential judgment.

The court granted the motion and discharged the CPL, holding that a CPL requires the proceeding to involve a triable interest in the land itself, which the plaintiff conceded he did not have.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment against the defendant for defamatory comments posted on Instagram, which falsely claimed the plaintiff was involved in violence against women.

The defendant failed to file a defence and was noted in default.

After multiple orders regarding service of the motion record, the defendant still did not respond.

The court granted default judgment, awarding $140,000 in damages for defamation and $1,413.11 in costs.

The TEC defendants brought a motion to admit evidence from the criminal trial of Christopher Husbands (who committed a mass shooting at the Eaton Centre) into the upcoming civil trial, and to strike the plaintiffs' jury notices.

The defendants argued the evidence was necessary to establish Husbands' mindset and the spontaneity of his actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Husbands' specific mindset and reasons for the shooting were not relevant to the core issue of whether the defendants breached their duty of care regarding security under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

As the criminal evidence was not admitted, the court also declined to strike the jury notices, finding that a jury is capable of handling the anticipated expert evidence on security standards.