Young Park

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by Metrolinx and Infrastructure Ontario to disqualify them from a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process for a major infrastructure project.

The applicants were disqualified because they failed to include a required Accounting Firm Letter (AFL) in their submission.

The court held that the disqualification decision was not subject to judicial review as it was not an exercise of a statutory power of decision.

Even if it were reviewable, the court found that the respondents did not breach any duty of fairness and their decision to strictly enforce the RFQ requirements was reasonable.

The respondents successfully sued the appellants in a jury trial for negligence after a glass Dutch oven shattered, causing severe injuries.

The jury found the appellants 75% liable for failing to adequately warn of the dangers associated with the product.

On appeal, the appellants argued the claim against one defendant was statute-barred, the jury's causation finding lacked an evidentiary basis, and the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on aggravated damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the limitation period and liability, finding the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to set aside the $25,000 aggravated damages award due to an erroneous jury instruction.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order granting a conditional stay of proceedings in Ontario.

The motion judge found that while Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter, other actions in Nevada and British Columbia were relevant to the forum non conveniens analysis, and ordered a temporary stay that would become permanent if the respondent commenced an action in those jurisdictions within 60 days.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's application of the Van Breda factors and the resulting disposition to be reasonable and fair.

Following a jurisdiction motion in which the court stayed an Ontario application concerning rights under a release and settlement agreement, the successful responding party sought costs.

The court considered submissions regarding whether the unsuccessful party should nonetheless avoid a costs award because Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter and the forum issue arose from related disputes involving other jurisdictions.

The court rejected the argument that the losing party should not pay costs simply because he reasonably expected to succeed.

Applying ordinary costs principles, the court held that the successful party on the motion was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Costs were fixed in a reduced amount as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The applicant, a former officer and director of the respondent mining companies, brought an application in Ontario seeking a determination of his rights to stock options under a Release and Settlement Agreement.

The respondent moved to stay the application, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and was forum non conveniens, as the respondent intended to allege the applicant breached his fiduciary duties and the agreement in Nevada.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the agreement was made in Ontario.

However, the court concluded that Ontario was forum non conveniens for resolving the omnibus disputes between the parties.

The court temporarily stayed the application for 60 days to allow the respondent to commence an action in British Columbia or Nevada, with the stay to become permanent if such an action is brought.

The plaintiffs sought costs following a 22-day product liability trial where the jury awarded them $1,157,850 in damages but found the plaintiff 25% contributorily negligent.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the plaintiffs' request for substantial indemnity costs and a cost premium.

The court also declined the defendants' request to reduce the costs award by 25% to reflect the contributory negligence finding, noting that the plaintiff's negligence did not materially affect the prospects for settlement.

The plaintiffs were awarded $387,140 in fees, plus HST and disbursements.

During a product liability jury trial, the defendants requested that the jury be charged on the doctrine of spoliation because the plaintiffs discarded the broken pieces of the cookware that allegedly caused the injury.

The court declined to charge the jury on spoliation, finding no evidence that the plaintiffs intentionally destroyed the evidence to affect ongoing or contemplated litigation.

The plaintiffs discarded the broken pieces shortly after the accident without contemplating a lawsuit.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondents specific performance of an agreement to sever and sell a parcel of land for a new Mazda dealership.

The appellants argued the agreement lacked consideration, was too uncertain to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, and that specific performance could not be ordered on a summary basis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding mutual promises constituted consideration, the agreement's terms were clear, and specific performance was available and appropriate on summary judgment.

The applicants sought judicial review of the investigative process leading to charges by the Professional Conduct Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario.

On a motion to determine who must file the record under Rule 68.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the Committee was not acting as a court or tribunal in its investigative function.

Therefore, Rule 68.04(1)(b) applied, requiring the applicants to prepare and file the record.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $20,580 in damages for a defective motor vehicle.

The trial judge found a fundamental breach of a collateral contract to provide a safe vehicle, entitling the respondent to rescission.

The Divisional Court upheld the damages calculation, noting an equitable adjustment was made for the respondent's use of the vehicle.

The respondent's cross-appeal for leave to appeal costs was dismissed.

The court declined to award costs for the appeal, citing disproportionate fees and the respondent's unreasonable refusal of a settlement offer.

The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant to organize a consumer club.

The defendant delivered a notice terminating the agreement, which the plaintiff argued was ineffective based on the renewal terms.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract and the defendant successfully moved for partial summary judgment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the termination provision ambiguous and held that extrinsic evidence of surrounding circumstances is always admissible to interpret a contract.

The court concluded there was a genuine issue for trial and allowed the appeal.