William S. Chalmers

The applicant brought an application to remove a Caution registered on the title of his property by his sister, the respondent, which delayed the closing of the property's sale.

The respondent claimed an unregistered interest based on an alleged loan, but withdrew the Caution the day before the hearing.

The court found the respondent had no reasonable cause to register the Caution, as a loan does not constitute an interest in land under the Land Titles Act.

The applicant was awarded $21,251.01 in damages for expenses incurred during the two-month closing delay, plus $30,000 in costs due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct and brinksmanship.

Angela Beauty Parlour Ltd. (Plaintiff) sued Gurnam and Surjit Multani (Defendants) for breach of a commercial lease, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation related to a beauty salon unit and residential units.

The Defendants counterclaimed for increased rent.

The court found that the Defendants were responsible for the cost of installing a tiled floor ($5,844) and ordered the return of $12,000 paid by the Plaintiff under an unenforceable oral agreement for increased rent.

All other claims by the Plaintiff, including for renovation costs, lost profits, and damages for misrepresentation or breach of quiet enjoyment/parking, were dismissed.

The Defendants' counterclaim for increased rent was also dismissed as the oral agreement was unenforceable.

The plaintiff, Canadian National Railway Company, sought to continue an interim injunction against protestors blockading its main rail line and to compel OPP officers to identify the protestors for contempt proceedings.

The court validated service of the motion record, continued the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience favoring the plaintiff.

The court also granted leave to examine an OPP officer to identify the protestors, expressing concern over police inaction in enforcing the initial order.

The plaintiff railway company brought an ex parte motion for an interim injunction to remove protesters blocking its main rail line.

The protesters were acting in solidarity with the Wet'suwet'en in British Columbia.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found a serious issue to be tried regarding trespass and tortious interference.

The court concluded the plaintiff suffered irreparable harm due to delayed freight and passenger trains, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction as the protest was on private property.

The interim injunction was granted for 10 days.

The applicant obtained a default judgment against a contractor for defective sewer installation and sought to enforce the judgment directly against the contractor's insurer under s. 132 of the Insurance Act.

The insurer denied coverage because the contractor failed to report the claim for nine years, breaching the policy's prompt notice condition.

The court found that the insured breached the notice condition and declined to grant relief from forfeiture, concluding that the delay was unreasonable, substantial, and prejudiced the insurer's ability to investigate and pursue third-party claims.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a manager with 30 years of service, was summarily dismissed after slapping a female subordinate's buttocks in front of other male colleagues.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming the touching was accidental and a joke.

The court applied the McKinley contextual analysis and found that the plaintiff's conduct constituted serious sexual harassment.

The court held that the plaintiff's lack of remorse and failure to understand the seriousness of his actions irreparably breached the employment relationship.

The action was dismissed, with the court finding the employer had just cause for termination.

Orthoarm Inc. moved for summary judgment to dismiss GAC International, LLC's action, arguing GAC was estopped by conduct from claiming a reduced royalty rate.

GAC's action sought a declaration that royalties should be 5% instead of 10% after another party began selling a bracket using the same patent.

The court dismissed Orthoarm's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact, including GAC's knowledge of the patent use, Orthoarm's detrimental reliance, and the feasibility of Orthoarm licensing the patent to other manufacturers.

The court determined that a trial was required for a fair and just determination.

The plaintiff agreed to purchase a restaurant from the defendant but failed to close the transaction, alleging the defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations regarding the business's profitability, equipment leases, and relationship with the landlord.

The plaintiff sought rescission of the agreement or a declaration of frustration of contract.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding no evidence of misrepresentation and that the plaintiff had access to actual sales records before signing.

The court granted the defendant's counterclaim for breach of contract, awarding damages for the resale shortfall, commission, and carrying costs, offset by the plaintiff's initial deposit.

The plaintiff's wife died of metastatic breast cancer after suffering a fall that caused fractures.

The plaintiff claimed accidental death benefits under an employer-provided group insurance policy, which was denied by the insurer because the death was caused by illness, not an accident.

The plaintiff sued the employer, Chrysler, alleging negligent misrepresentation regarding the policy terms, negligent selection of the insurer, and negligent infliction of mental distress.

Chrysler moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue for trial as the employer's benefit summaries contained clear disclaimers directing employees to the actual policy wording, and the employer's conduct was not flagrant, outrageous, or malicious.

This endorsement from a case conference addressed procedural issues concerning examinations for discovery scheduled for a three-week period.

Key issues included confirming the discovery schedule for defendants, determining the order of examination between co-plaintiffs, and allocating discovery costs.

The court set the discovery schedule, ordered one plaintiff's counsel to examine witnesses first due to preparedness, and denied a request for an advance list of questions.

Costs were apportioned 3/4 to one plaintiff's clients and 1/4 to the self-represented plaintiff.

The moving parties (the Innes Parties) brought a motion for summary judgment in two related actions arising from a share purchase agreement for a quarry business.

The responding parties (the Guido Parties) defaulted on payments under a promissory note and failed to assume mortgages as agreed, but argued they were induced into the agreement by misrepresentations regarding the quarry licence, the standing of the mortgages, and the condition of equipment.

The court found no genuine issues for trial, concluding that no misrepresentations were made and that the entire agreement clause precluded the pre-contractual representations alleged.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the Innes Parties for $1,477,200, plus a declaration for indemnity regarding the mortgages.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action regarding entitlement to termination benefits following an alleged change in control.

The plaintiff's action involved the same factual matrix and similar contractual terms as two other actions proceeding to trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that granting summary judgment would risk duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings of fact, contrary to the principles in Hryniak.

The defendant landlord brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for wrongful termination of a commercial lease.

The landlord had unilaterally increased the minimum and additional rent shortly after purchasing the building, and terminated the lease when the tenant refused to pay the increased amounts.

The court found that the tenant was not in breach of the lease, as the rent increases were not authorized by the lease terms and the landlord was estopped from changing the rent calculation method.

The court also held that the individual plaintiff could claim damages for the loss of value of her shares in the operating company, as the company was not a party to the lease and had no independent cause of action.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs, awarding damages for the loss of the business and return of the deposit.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against their former investment advisor and his corporate entities for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and for summary judgment against the mutual fund dealer, FundEx, on the basis of vicarious liability.

The court granted default judgment against the advisor and his companies, finding the elements of civil fraud and breach of fiduciary duty were established based on deemed admissions.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment against FundEx, concluding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding whether the advisor's wrongful acts were sufficiently connected to his authorized conduct to impose vicarious liability, and whether the plaintiffs' claims were discoverable outside the limitation period.

The Harmon Defendants brought a motion to strike the claim against them in the 'Monster Claim'.

The plaintiff, Premium Trust, claimed repayment of a loan but failed to allege any direct contract or duty owed by the Harmon Defendants to Premium Trust.

The court found that the pleading did not sufficiently disclose a cause of action against the Harmon Defendants.

The court struck the relevant paragraph of the claim and granted the plaintiff leave to amend the pleading.

The defendants requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion, dated June 10, 2019, pursuant to Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff's motion sought orders for the production and preservation of certain documentation related to an alleged harassment complaint.

The court found that the plaintiff's motion was not, on its face, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and therefore dismissed the defendants' request to dismiss it under Rule 2.1.02.

The defendants brought motions to strike three related actions commenced by investors who financed movie productions.

The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, breach of trust, gross negligence, and negligent misrepresentation against various corporate and individual defendants.

The court struck the breach of contract claims against the Nightingale defendants as there was no privity of contract.

The court also struck certain gross negligence and breach of trust claims where insufficient particulars were pleaded.

However, the court upheld the majority of the claims for breach of trust, gross negligence, and negligent misrepresentation against the individual directors, finding they were adequately pleaded.

The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their pleadings.

The Plaintiffs moved to appoint Janina Gal as litigation guardian for Andrzej Gal, who was mentally incapable.

The Defendants opposed, arguing Janina had an adverse interest and was not indifferent to the outcome.

The court found Janina had a conflict of interest, as the litigation's success would result in properties forming part of Andrew's estate, which would then be transferred solely to Janina under Andrew's will, conflicting with Andrew's stated intention to divide properties equally among his daughters.

Furthermore, Janina was not indifferent to the outcome, as she stood to gain financially and had an acrimonious relationship with another daughter involved in the dispute.

The motion to appoint Janina as litigation guardian was dismissed, and the Plaintiffs were ordered to appoint a new, unconflicted litigation guardian or move to appoint the Public Trustee and Guardian.

Zeifmans LLP, a judgment creditor of Mitec Technologies Inc., brought an application seeking an oppression remedy against Mitec and its directors (Schwartz, Mandel, Rudin) and leave to commence a derivative action.

The court granted Zeifmans standing as a complainant for the oppression remedy, finding that Mitec's payment to shareholders before settling Zeifmans' invoice, despite a prior agreement and sufficient funds, was unfairly prejudicial and disregarded Zeifmans' reasonable expectations.

The court imposed personal liability on the directors due to their bad faith.

However, the court denied leave for the derivative action, finding it was not in the best interests of the corporation given its limited financial resources and lack of stakeholder support.

Troy Rennie sought an order for partition and sale of a property and rectification of title, arguing he was a joint owner.

Maureen Rennie opposed, claiming Troy was not an owner, or alternatively, that the sale should be denied due to malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct.

The court found that Troy was a valid joint owner, the transfer was a gift, not subject to an oral trust or resulting trust, and there were no exceptional circumstances to deny the partition and sale.

The court ordered the sale of the property and awarded costs to Troy, with a portion to be paid personally by the respondent's counsel due to inappropriate conduct.