William Friedman

The appellants, the Attorney General of Canada and the Ontario Provincial Police, appealed a motion judge's decision that the respondents' claims for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, misfeasance in public office, and civil conspiracy were not statute-barred.

The core issue was the application of the "appropriate means" element of the discoverability test under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that it was premature for the respondents to commence their actions until related civil forfeiture proceedings and an appeal of a costs order (which addressed Crown misconduct) were concluded.

The appeals were dismissed, affirming that the limitation period had not expired.

This appeal arose from a long-standing, high-conflict family law dispute.

The appellants challenged a motion judge's order that clarified spousal support obligations, addressed the impact of bankruptcy on an equalization payment secured by a letter of credit, and apportioned trial costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's clarifications that periodic support continued due to the husband's failure to exercise a lump sum option, that the letter of credit securing equalization and support created an equitable trust not extinguished by bankruptcy, and that the allocation of trial costs was appropriate.

The respondent, Zhong Wei, sought costs against the applicant, Jonathan Beatty, and his counsel, John Lo Faso, on a joint and several basis, for a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals.

The Master found that counsel's conduct during cross-examination was improper and caused unnecessary costs and delay.

The Master exercised discretion under Rule 57.07(1)(c) to order counsel to personally pay a portion of Wei's costs, deferring the quantum determination pending the filing of settlement offers.

The appellant, a father, appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his mortgage action against his son and daughter-in-law.

The trial judge had found the mortgage unenforceable on three grounds: duress, sham, and failure to prove advances.

The Court of Appeal reversed on the first two grounds, finding no duress and that the mortgage was not a sham.

However, the Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the father failed to prove that funds advanced through a company were made under the mortgage, as opposed to being income to the son.

The appeal was dismissed.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a dismissed summary judgment motion brought by the defendant, Klein-Rose Homes Inc., under the Construction Lien Act.

The court applied section 86 of the CLA, which grants broad discretion in awarding costs in construction lien proceedings, and considered the Rules of Civil Procedure where not inconsistent.

The plaintiff, Allcon Concrete & Haulage Ltd., was the successful party on the underlying motion and sought costs.

The court fixed costs at $26,560 for the plaintiff, payable upon the plaintiff's success at trial or a subsequent summary judgment motion in proving the validity of its claim for lien, irrespective of the full success on the contract claim or defense against the counterclaim.

The court rejected the defendant's argument to reserve costs to the trial judge and the plaintiff's assertion of the defendant's "unduly aggressive and unreasonable" conduct.

The court determined the quantum of costs to be awarded to three innocent third parties following the Crown's unsuccessful forfeiture application under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown had sought forfeiture of two properties without evidence of complicity or collusion by the owners.

The court found the Crown's conduct constituted a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable prosecution standards, including failure to conduct proper disclosure, misrepresentation to the Superior Court regarding mortgage law, and proceeding with a meritless application.

The court awarded substantial costs to FirstOntario and reduced costs to Fercan and GRVN, considering factors including proportionality, duplication of services, and the applicants' own litigation positions.

The applicants sought costs awards against the Crown following the dismissal of the Crown's forfeiture applications under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown had sought forfeiture of two properties allegedly used in connection with marijuana grow operations.

The court found that the Crown's conduct in commencing restraint and forfeiture applications against innocent third parties, without evidence of complicity or collusion, constituted a marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution.

The Crown failed to properly assess available evidence before proceeding and maintained an intransigent "hardball" attitude throughout the proceedings.

The court determined that costs awards were warranted.

The applicant corporation sought an injunction to prevent approval of contracts related to a proposed light rail transit project in the Region of Waterloo.

The court found the applicant lacked standing, noting it was recently incorporated, had unknown ownership, and possessed no apparent assets or ratepayer status.

The court further held the principal failed to disclose a personal interest arising from expropriation of his property connected to the project, undermining the equitable basis for relief.

The applicant failed to provide an undertaking for damages, did not establish a strong prima facie case under the Planning Act, and failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a balance of convenience favouring relief.

The application for an injunction was dismissed with costs.

The applicants sought revocation of two restraint orders issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and return of property proceeds held by the Seized Property Management Directorate Branch.

The Crown had previously dismissed its forfeiture application after over 35 days of hearings, finding no evidence of complicity or collusion on the part of the applicants.

The court granted the application, ordering revocation of the restraint orders and distribution of the remaining proceeds pursuant to a consent order among the interested parties.

The court rejected the Crown's request for a 90-day adjournment to allow the Civil Remedies Office to investigate whether to commence separate proceedings, finding such a referral constituted an abuse of process and an attempt to relitigate issues already determined.

The Crown sought forfeiture of two properties under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following the discovery of sophisticated marijuana grow operations.

The first property, a former Molson Brewery plant in Barrie, contained two large indoor grow operations operated by individuals convicted of production and trafficking offences.

The second property was a residential dwelling in Phelpston owned by a company controlled by the respondent's brother.

The Crown alleged that the property owners and their corporations were complicit in or colluded with the drug offences.

The respondents argued they were innocent third parties unaware of the illegal activities occurring on their properties.

The applicants, Fercan Developments Inc. and GRVN Group Inc., challenged the constitutional validity of sections 16 and 19 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which permit courts to order forfeiture of offence-related property.

The applicants raised three constitutional questions: whether the forfeiture provisions were ultra vires Parliament as relating to property and civil rights; whether they violated section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by conferring jurisdiction on provincial courts; and whether they violated the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The court upheld the constitutional validity of all challenged provisions, finding that forfeiture is a valid exercise of Parliament's criminal law power, that the Ontario Court of Justice may constitutionally exercise forfeiture jurisdiction, and that procedural safeguards meet Bill of Rights requirements.

The applicant corporation brought an application concerning a restraint order affecting property.

It was uncontested that neither the corporation nor its sole shareholder, officer, and director had been charged with any criminal offence related to the restraint order or the property.

The respondent did not dispute these facts and there was no cross‑examination on the supporting affidavit.

The court issued a supplementary endorsement confirming that these uncontested facts informed the earlier decision dismissing the application.