William Sasso

Following a decision determining that a foster child was not entitled to share in an intestate estate, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant estate trustee was awarded full indemnity costs payable from the estate, as the application was necessary for the proper administration of the estate.

The successful respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs payable by the unsuccessful respondent, with the balance of his full indemnity costs payable by the estate, as the litigation between the respondents was adversarial and did not engage public policy considerations.

The applicant trustee sought directions on the distribution of an intestate estate.

The deceased died without a spouse, issue, or parents, leaving his estate to be distributed among his siblings.

The respondent, a former foster child of the deceased's adoptive parents, claimed entitlement to share in the estate as a 'sister'.

The court held that under the Children's Law Reform Act and the Succession Law Reform Act, a foster child who was never legally adopted does not meet the definition of a 'child' or 'sister' for the purposes of intestate succession.

The foster child was therefore excluded from sharing in the estate.

The Ontario Trustee applied for an order approving the sale of estate farmland and a vesting order.

The respondent beneficiaries opposed the sale and brought a counter-application to remove the trustee.

The court found the trustee breached his fiduciary duties by failing to confer with the designated beneficiary before selling the property, and by pre-taking compensation and registering a mortgage against the property without authorization.

The court dismissed the trustee's application for a vesting order, finding he did not come to court with clean hands, and granted the counter-application to remove and replace him as trustee.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 34.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to compel the responding parties to produce documents in advance of cross-examinations on affidavits sworn in support of the responding parties' summary judgment motions.

The responding parties argued the motion was prohibited under Rule 48.04(1) because the action had been set down for trial, and that the requests were disproportionate.

The court held that Rule 48.04(1) did not bar the motion and the moving party had not waived the right to documentary discovery.

However, because the responding parties had never served affidavits of documents, the court dismissed the motion without prejudice, directing the responding parties to first serve affidavits of documents so that relevance and proportionality could be properly assessed.

The defendant tobacco companies brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' proposed class actions as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants breached their contracts by participating in smuggling duty-free tobacco back into Canada, avoiding higher domestic prices.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of the alleged smuggling long before commencing the actions in 2009 and 2010.

The court dismissed the motions, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding when the plaintiffs discovered the constituent elements of their claims, particularly given the defendants' consistent denials of involvement in smuggling.

The plaintiff, whose murder conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal after a reference, brought a civil action against the Crown and police alleging negligence and wrongdoing related to an undisclosed alibi.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action.

The court dismissed the action as an abuse of process, finding that it sought to relitigate factual findings already made by the Court of Appeal regarding the absence of wrongdoing by the Crown and police.

The court also held that, alternatively, a permanent stay under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act was warranted due to the impossibility of a fair trial given the passage of over 40 years, faded memories, and lost evidence.

A developer sued a municipality alleging breach of a supplementary subdivision agreement governing allocation of sewage capacity for a commercial and residential development.

The agreement provided that additional sewer capacity in the municipal system was reserved for the developer’s subdivision and that the municipality would not allocate capacity to lands outside the subdivision until the development was fully built out.

The municipality nevertheless allocated capacity to an adjacent development and expropriated a one‑foot reserve to allow connection.

The court interpreted the contractual language in light of the factual matrix and held the agreement granted the developer priority to available capacity.

The municipality breached the agreement by allocating capacity to the neighbouring development before completion of the subdivision.

The plaintiff proved loss‑of‑chance damages for lost leasing opportunities and was awarded compensatory damages, but punitive damages were denied.

The plaintiffs contracted HIV from the defendant after he had unprotected sex with them without disclosing his status.

The plaintiffs sued the Windsor Health Unit and the Windsor Police for negligence, alleging they knew of the risk the defendant posed but failed to take steps to prevent it.

The health unit and police moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing they owed no private law duty of care to the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the issue of whether a duty of care existed was complex and required a full trial to determine proximity and policy considerations.