William D. Black

A case conference was held to address the scheduling of several outstanding motions after the plaintiffs dismissed their counsel.

The court rescheduled the motions to the week of November 7, 2022, to be heard virtually.

The hearing of the motions was marked peremptory against the plaintiffs and their corporate entities, giving them time to retain new counsel without further delaying the proceedings.

The applicants, students at Seneca College, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the enforcement of the college's mandatory Covid-19 vaccination policy.

They argued the policy violated their rights under sections 2(a), 7, 8, and 15 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to establish a strong prima facie case.

The court held that their objections were based on personal preference rather than a comprehensive moral code, and the policy did not force medical treatment but rather presented a choice with consequences.

The court also found no irreparable harm and held that the balance of convenience favored the public interest in health and safety.

The plaintiff, an Ontario wine agent, brought an action against the defendant, a New York-based wine distributor, for damages in lieu of reasonable notice following the unilateral termination of their 15-year unwritten agency relationship.

The defendant terminated the relationship without notice to consolidate its Canadian distribution with a single new agent.

The court found that the distributorship agreement was terminable only upon reasonable notice, rejecting the defendant's argument that no notice was required.

The court determined that a 15-month notice period was appropriate, considering the plaintiff's significant efforts in building the brand in Ontario, and awarded damages based on lost commissions and unpaid invoices.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment seeking payment of a liquidated debt of $795,852.80 plus post-judgment interest, arising from the defendants' breach of a 2014 agreement regarding unpaid royalties and an indemnity.

The defendants did not oppose the motion.

The court found the plaintiff's materials amply supported the claim and granted judgment in the requested amount, along with agreed partial indemnity costs of $20,369.42.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment after noting the defendants in default in an action for investment fraud.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to set aside the noting in default.

The court found that the defendants had engaged in a concerted effort to delay the proceedings and failed to provide any substantive evidence of a meritorious defence.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the noting in default and granted default judgment to the plaintiffs, finding the primary individual defendant liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract, and the defendant lawyer liable for negligent misrepresentation.

The plaintiffs were awarded compensatory damages, punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant purchaser sought the return of a $3.25 million deposit after refusing to close a $70 million commercial real estate transaction, alleging the respondent vendor failed to satisfy conditions regarding a Walmart estoppel certificate and a Dollarama lease extension.

The vendor argued the purchaser used minor technicalities to avoid closing due to the economic uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the vendor made commercially reasonable efforts to satisfy the conditions and that the purchaser failed to act reasonably and in good faith by refusing to accept the documents or negotiate.

The court concluded the purchaser repudiated the transaction and the vendor was entitled to retain the deposit.

The applicants, co-owners of a property, brought an application to discharge a 1961 mortgage registered against the property.

The original mortgagees could not be located despite extensive searches.

The court was satisfied that the mortgage had likely been paid in full and that there was no reasonable prospect of obtaining a discharge from the mortgagees.

The court ordered the mortgage discharged pursuant to section 12(8) of the Mortgages Act.

A case conference was held to address multiple related actions.

On consent, the claims against Shahzad Siddiqui and Borden Ladner Gervais LLP were dismissed with prejudice and without costs.

The court directed counsel to confer regarding the potential release of individual defendants and established a timetable for scheduling upcoming dispositive motions.

The respondent law firm brought a motion to strike a supplementary motion record and subsequent affidavits delivered by the applicants in an application to assess the firm's accounts.

The applicants delivered the 1,229-page supplementary record over six years after the application was commenced, without leave, and after the applicants had already been cross-examined on their original affidavits.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the late delivery constituted improper case-splitting and an attempt to 'shore up' evidence post-cross-examination.

The court also denied the applicants' request to cross-examine a witness, finding they had forfeited the right by failing to exercise reasonable diligence.

A case conference was held to manage multiple related proceedings.

Counsel for the plaintiffs indicated a recommendation for the plaintiffs to agree to dismissals without costs in most cases, except potentially the claim against Grant Thornton LLP Canada, which requires leave to proceed.

The court directed that a new class action issued by one of the plaintiffs be case managed together with the existing matters.

Counsel were directed to advise on dismissals or agree on a timetable for dispositive motions by a specified date.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement arising from a defaulted loan and promissory note.

The defendants argued the underlying debt was statute-barred, the interest rate was criminal, and the individual defendant did not sign as a guarantor.

The court found the promissory note was a demand obligation, the limitation period was extended by the COVID-19 suspension and a valid email acknowledgment, and the individual defendant clearly signed as a guarantor.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

At a trial management conference, the court considered whether a jury trial scheduled to begin on May 24, 2022, could be completed by June 30, 2022.

Despite the cooperative efforts of counsel to pare down the estimated trial time, the court found that proceeding would create a very high risk of a mistrial due to scheduling constraints and unforeseen delays.

The court ordered the trial adjourned to a window in early 2023.

The defendants brought motions to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim, which alleged he was racially profiled and falsely accused of theft at a trade show.

The court dismissed the motions brought by the exhibitor and security company defendants, finding the claim disclosed potential causes of action in negligence, misrepresentation, and defamation when read generously.

The court granted the motion brought by the event organizer, striking the claim against it without leave to amend, as no reasonable cause of action was discernible.

The plaintiff, a prominent human rights lawyer, was struck by the defendant's motor vehicle while riding her bicycle.

The defendant failed to discharge the reverse onus under the Highway Traffic Act and was found wholly liable.

The court accepted expert medical evidence that the plaintiff suffered a permanent mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and chronic migraines, which effectively ended her legal career.

The court dismissed the defendants' threshold motion, finding the plaintiff sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important function, and awarded substantial damages including $250,000 in general damages, past and future income loss, and future care costs.

The plaintiff sought injunctive relief against two corporate defendants and their individual owners for alleged breaches of franchise agreements, including failure to purchase specified ingredients, pay royalties, and operating a substantially similar restaurant post-termination.

The defendants did not appear, and a transfer motion was pending in Ottawa.

The court identified deficiencies in the plaintiff's record, specifically regarding the Nepean Franchise Agreement's expiry date and the lack of definition or case law for "substantially similar" in the Elgin Franchise Agreement.

Consequently, the motion was adjourned to allow the plaintiff to provide supplementary materials and to await the outcome of the defendants' transfer motion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a non-competition agreement.

The motion was adjourned because the defendants' counsel had difficulty serving their client and lacked instructions, and the individual defendant was not aware of the motion.

The court also noted deficiencies in the plaintiffs' evidentiary materials regarding the similarities of the businesses.

The court directed the defendants' counsel to promptly bring a motion to be removed from the record and ensure the defendants are properly notified of the pending motion.

This endorsement clarifies a previous order dated October 15, 2021, due to disputes and uncertainty raised by the respondents regarding rental arrears, utilities, and obligations concerning a fence.

The court confirmed its original interpretation of the rental abatement period (November 2020 to February 2021), upheld the previously ordered amounts for utilities and BIA, and reaffirmed its decision on the fence, granting the respondents an extension to provide a modified design.

The plaintiff, CryptoStar Corp., sought an interim order for the preservation of specific funds (Upfront Payments) or assets purchased with them, and a declaration of interest in property to facilitate a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) in Alberta.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Upfront Payments did not constitute a "specific fund" under Rule 45.02 as they were co-mingled and not contractually segregated.

The court also found no serious issue to be tried regarding the refund claim under the Agreement's terms and no basis for a CPL as the plaintiff failed to establish an interest in land.

The plaintiffs, The Calbot Group Ltd. and 2649106 Ontario Inc. cob Synergy Capital, brought two motions: a Preservation Motion seeking to secure $5 million from land sale proceeds and a Jurisdiction Motion against certain foreign defendants.

The court first addressed the Jurisdiction Motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a real and substantial connection between the foreign defendants (NSR Canada Development Limited, New Silk Road Culturaltainment Ltd., and Sha Huang aka Sam Huang) and Ontario, as the alleged contract (MOU or verbal agreement) was not genuine and the corporate veil could not be pierced.

Consequently, the action against these foreign defendants and Mr. Huang was stayed.

The Preservation Motion, seeking relief under Rule 45.02, a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), or Mareva injunction, was also dismissed.

The court found that the plaintiffs' claim was for damages, not a specific fund, and they failed to demonstrate a serious prospect of success or meet the stringent requirements for such remedies.

Costs were awarded to the successful defendants.

The applicant sought an urgent hearing due to the respondent's continued refusal to allow access to his unit and provide a key, in contravention of previous court orders.

This non-compliance raised significant health and safety concerns, including evidence of hoarding, pest infestation, and fire risk within the unit.

The court found the situation untenable and dangerous, granting the applicant's request for an urgent hearing and setting specific deadlines for material exchange and service, including alternative service methods due to the respondent's past refusal of personal service.