Unlock 8 more sections of this judge’s background. Start your 7-day free trial.
Appeared as counsel in 50 cases (2001–2025)
106 total
Statement of claim struck as abuse of process for attempting to relitigate previously rejected forgery allegations.
The plaintiff commenced an action against his real estate agent and brokerage, alleging the agent forged his signature on a waiver of a home inspection condition.
This same allegation of forgery had been previously raised by the plaintiff and rejected by a judge in an earlier application brought by the vendor to keep the plaintiff's deposit.
The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim as an abuse of process and barred by issue estoppel.
The court granted the motion, finding that the core issue was identical to the one already decided, the plaintiff had the opportunity to appeal the prior decision but did not, and allowing the claim to proceed would be an abuse of process.
Permanent injunction granted against a plumber operating a fake law firm to threaten customers.
The applicant brought an application for a permanent injunction against the respondents, a plumber and his corporation, for holding themselves out as legal practitioners.
The individual respondent used a fake law firm name to send demand letters to plumbing customers and maintained a website offering legal services.
The court granted the injunction, finding the respondents' actions violated the Law Society Act, and ordered the corporation to change its name to remove any reference to legal services.
Interim injunction granted against solicitation and confidential information misuse.
The moving parties sought interim injunctive relief arising from the alleged secret creation and operation of a competing business by insiders and key employees within a longstanding family-run sign business.
Applying the RJR-MacDonald framework, the court found at least a strong prima facie case of breaches of fiduciary duties, solicitation of employees and customers, and misuse or threatened misuse of confidential information.
The court held that irreparable harm was established through likely loss of clients, employees, market share, and reputation, and that the balance of convenience favoured limited restraints.
An interim order issued barring solicitation of specified customers, general contractors, and current employees, and prohibiting possession, disclosure, or use of confidential information, but the court declined to impose a complete interim non-competition ban.
Summary judgment granted dismissing slip and fall claim where plaintiff tripped on a vehicle barrier.
The plaintiff brought an action for injuries sustained after slipping and falling on a retaining wall dividing the parking lots of a KFC and a TD Bank.
The remaining defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action on liability.
The court found that the barrier was intended to block vehicles, not for pedestrian crossing, and there was no evidence of regular pedestrian use that would create a duty to maintain it for that purpose.
Furthermore, the plaintiff's evidence regarding the fall was contradictory and unreliable.
The court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.
Rule 45.02 order granted requiring real estate brokerage to set aside former agent's disputed commissions.
The plaintiff, a former real estate agent for the defendant brokerage, brought a motion for an order under Rule 45.02 or an injunction requiring the defendant to set aside commission funds from transactions he closed.
The plaintiff also sought to strike the Statement of Defence or demand particulars.
The court denied the injunction but granted the Rule 45.02 order, finding the plaintiff had a right to a specific fund of commissions.
The defendant was ordered to provide an accounting, pay existing held funds into court, and set aside 12.5% of gross commissions on an ongoing basis.
The defendant was also ordered to provide particulars.
Insurer ordered to pay 50% of defense costs as underlying property damage claim triggered duty to defend.
AIG Insurance Company of Canada brought an application seeking equitable contribution from Lloyd's Underwriters towards the cost of defending the City of Timmins in an underlying property damage action.
AIG and Lloyd's provided consecutive liability insurance policies to the City.
Lloyd's denied coverage, arguing the damage was not an 'occurrence' or fell under the 'expected or intended' exclusion due to a preliminary engineering report received by the City.
The court found the engineering report was not definitive enough to crystallize the loss or make the ongoing damage expected or intended.
The court held that the underlying claim raised a mere possibility of coverage, triggering Lloyd's duty to defend, and ordered Lloyd's to pay 50% of the defense costs.