Decisions of the Court

• 2025-05-30 Duffy v. McDaniel, 2025 ONSC 3227 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Approval motion — Settlement approval — Contingency fee retainer agreement — Solicitor-client accounts — Structured payment schedule — Court approval required for settlements involving parties under disability — Whether the proposed solicitor-client accounts and structured payment schedule are reasonable — Framework for court approval of settlements under disability law<br />Professional responsibility — Solicitor-client accounts — Contingency fee agreements — Reasonableness of fees — Factors considered include time expended, complexity, risks, and results achieved — Whether the proposed fees for Stephen and Adriana are reasonable — Court approved fees based on contingency fee agreement and quantum meruit principles<br />Estates and trusts — Structured settlement — Management of settlement funds — Structured payment schedule for disabled party — Lifetime payments with 20-year guarantee — Consideration of disability benefits and future entitlements — Whether the proposed structure is in the best interests of the disabled party — Court approved structured payment schedule
• 2025-05-29 Drumonde v. Spellay, 2025 ONSC 3221 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Estates and trusts — Wills — Interpretation of testator's intentions — Cottage property left to children with conditions for shared use and eventual ownership by the last surviving child — Executor's discretion in administering the estate — Does the Will create a joint tenancy or tenancy in common? — Armchair principle applied to interpret the testator's intentions — Framework for interpreting ambiguous testamentary provisions<br />Property — Partition Act — Joint tenancy — Cottage property held by siblings as joint tenants under the Will — Applicants seek sale and division of proceeds — Respondent opposed to sale, citing testator's intention to keep the property in the family — Can joint tenants force a sale under the Partition Act? — Governing principles for joint tenancy and forced sale<br />Statutory interpretation — Executor's discretion — Unequal division of proceeds — Respondent's financial and physical contributions to the property over 22 years — Should the court recognize contributions when dividing sale proceeds? — Interpretation of executor's powers under the Will — Balancing testator's intentions with equitable considerations<br />Sale — Testamentary opt-out clause — Clause allowing siblings to opt out of shared ownership for $5,000 — Estate funds depleted, making opt-out clause unenforceable — Passage of time and increased property value — Does the opt-out clause remain valid decades after the testator's death? — Court's interpretation of time-limited testamentary provisions
• 2025-05-29 Brown v. Security National Insurance Company, 2025 ONSC 3211 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Simplified procedure — Examination for discovery — Motion to compel further discovery — Plaintiff sought to examine a second representative of the defendant corporation for 60 minutes — Whether the criteria under Rule 31.03(4) for further discovery were met — Proportionality and objectives of simplified procedure considered — Rule 76.04(2) limits discovery to three hours — Test for additional discovery is strict — Motion dismissed<br />Insurance — Examination for discovery — Corporate representative — Plaintiff alleged bad faith and breach of contract in handling of insurance claim — Whether the defendant’s representative had sufficient knowledge to answer questions regarding discontinued policy endorsements — Defendant argued that undertakings and responses addressed all issues — Court found no basis to compel further discovery<br />Evidence — Undertakings and refusals — Examination for discovery — Plaintiff argued that the defendant’s representative failed to provide satisfactory answers to key questions — Defendant provided responses to undertakings and questions taken under advisement — Court held that the defendant’s efforts to provide answers were sufficient — No meaningful discovery deprivation established<br />Statutory interpretation — Rules of Civil Procedure — Simplified procedure — Examination for discovery — Whether Rule 31.03(4) permits further discovery in simplified procedure actions — Court emphasized proportionality and cost-efficiency objectives of Rule 76 — Additional discovery not justified under the circumstances
• 2025-05-29 2642948 Ontario Inc. v. Jonny’s Antiques Ltd., 2025 ONSC 3215 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Costs — Indemnity basis — Defendant sought to reduce costs to partial indemnity or have each party bear their own costs — Plaintiff sought full indemnity costs of $98,989.73 — Should the Defendant pay costs on a full indemnity basis? — General rule that successful party is entitled to costs — Courts of Justice Act, s. 131(1) — Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 57.01(1)<br />Civil procedure — Costs — Reasonableness of fees and disbursements — Plaintiff's Bill of Costs included fees for unrelated matters and excessive hours — Defendant argued costs were unreasonably high — Should the court adjust the costs awarded? — Court reduced fees to $25,000 and disbursements to $5,000 — Costs must be fair and reasonable — Boucher v. Public Accountants Council<br />Contracts — Mortgage agreements — Contractual provisions for costs — Mortgage agreement provided for full indemnity costs for enforcement — Does a contractual provision override the court's discretion to award fair and reasonable costs? — Contractual provisions recognized absent misconduct or unfairness — Rule 57.01(1)(0.b) considered alongside fairness principles
• 2025-05-28 Country Wide Homes Upper Thornhill Estates Inc. v. Liu, 2025 ONSC 2494 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Contracts — Breach of contract — Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) — Defendant failed to close on a $3.35 million property purchase — Plaintiff mitigated damages by reselling the property at a loss — Is the Defendant liable for breach of the APS? — Breach of APS established — Plaintiff entitled to damages for the shortfall and carrying costs<br />Obligations — Duty to disclose — Vendor’s obligations under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) — Plaintiff provided the Certificate of Property Use (CPU) to the Defendant before closing — Did the Plaintiff meet its statutory disclosure obligations? — Disclosure obligations under s. 197 of the EPA satisfied by providing the CPU prior to closing<br />Environment — Contaminated property — Certificate of Property Use (CPU) — Defendant alleged misrepresentation regarding environmental contamination and safety of the property — Was the Defendant misled about the environmental condition of the property? — No misrepresentation found — CPU disclosure met statutory requirements<br />Evidence — Language barriers — Misrepresentation — Defendant claimed she did not understand the APS due to language barriers and lack of legal review — Defendant had prior real estate experience and a bilingual agent — Were the Defendant’s claims of misunderstanding valid? — Evidence showed Defendant understood the APS and its terms — Claims of misunderstanding rejected<br />Property — Forfeiture of deposit — Damages — Plaintiff sought forfeiture of the Defendant’s deposit and additional costs incurred due to breach — Is the Plaintiff entitled to retain the deposit and recover carrying costs? — Deposit forfeited — Plaintiff awarded damages of $741,999 plus interest and costs<br />Civil procedure — Counterclaim — Misrepresentation and breach of good faith — Defendant alleged misrepresentation and lack of good faith by the Plaintiff — Should the counterclaim be dismissed? — Counterclaim dismissed as unsupported by evidence — Plaintiff’s conduct found to be in compliance with legal obligations

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2025-05-30 John v. Swedcan Lumican Plastics Inc., 2025 ONSC 3022 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario — Summary hearing — Reasonableness of decision — Tribunal dismissed application for lack of evidence linking alleged unfair treatment to Code grounds — Was the HRTO’s decision unreasonable due to failure to consider relevant evidence? — Standard of review for HRTO decisions under s. 45.8 of the Human Rights Code — Vavilov framework applied to assess reasonableness of administrative decisions<br />Evidence — Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario — Summary hearing — Applicant alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate disability — Tribunal found no evidence linking unfair treatment to Code grounds — Did the HRTO fail to consider relevant evidence, including testimony and medical records? — Tribunal’s duty to address evidence before rejecting it as insufficient — Test for evidence sufficiency in summary hearings<br />Civil procedure — Procedural fairness — Change in procedure — Summary hearing ordered after merits hearing commenced — Tribunal failed to justify change in procedure or address applicant’s objections — Did the HRTO breach procedural fairness by overruling prior procedural decisions? — Baker factors applied to assess procedural fairness — Legitimate expectations of applicant to complete merits hearing<br />Labour and employment — Human Rights Code — Individual respondents — Striking of personal respondents from application — Tribunal found no prejudice in removing individual respondents due to vicarious liability of corporate employer — Was the decision to strike individual respondents reasonable? — Schrenk decision considered but not determinative — Tribunal’s discretion in naming individual respondents<br />Rights and freedoms — Reasonable apprehension of bias — Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario — Applicant alleged bias by Vice-Chair in dismissing application — Strong presumption of impartiality for administrative decision-makers — Was there a reasonable apprehension of bias? — Threshold for displacing presumption of impartiality not met — Tribunal’s duty to provide sufficient reasons to demonstrate impartiality
• 2025-05-30 Tamming v. Durham District School Board, 2025 ONSC 3118 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Reasonableness standard — Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed application alleging discrimination, sexual harassment, and reprisal — Applicant sought judicial review to quash the decision — Was the Tribunal's decision reasonable? — Tribunal entitled to deference as a specialized body — Decision upheld as reasonable under the standard set out in Canada v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65<br />Evidence — Summary hearings — Assessment of evidence — Tribunal dismissed application for lack of evidence connecting alleged unfair treatment to the protected ground of sex — Did the Tribunal err in its application of the legal test for summary hearings? — Tribunal distinguished between accepting facts and assumptions — No evidence supporting discrimination or reprisal found<br />Labour and employment — Discrimination — Sexual harassment — Reprisal — Applicant alleged termination was discriminatory and retaliatory — Tribunal found no evidence linking termination to sex or reprisal for raising concerns about gossip — Did the Tribunal properly address allegations of sexual harassment and reprisal? — Tribunal dismissed claims as speculative and unsupported<br />Civil procedure — New evidence on judicial review — Applicant sought to introduce new evidence regarding union's alleged failure to provide fair representation — Should the court admit new evidence? — Court declined to admit evidence as it did not address the basis for the Tribunal's decision
• 2025-05-30 Mendoza v. Cruz, 2025 ONSC 3044 (CanLII)
  Key Words: writing — reported — payable — motion — leave
• 2025-05-30 Strub v. Harkness, 2025 ONSC 3050 (CanLII)
  Key Words: motion — leave — writing — discretion — panel
• 2025-05-30 Ventullo v. Demelo, 2025 ONSC 3099 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Lease — Termination of tenancy — Validity of notice of termination — Landlord sought to terminate tenancy for own use under section 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 — Tenant argued notice was invalid due to improper identification of the rental unit — Did the LTB err in law in finding the notice valid? — Proper application of section 43 of the RTA regarding notice requirements<br />Lease — Eviction — Balancing interests of landlord and tenant — Tenant was 90 years old, had mobility issues, and had lived in the unit for 18 years — Landlord required unit for personal use to support elderly father — Did the LTB err in law in balancing the parties' interests under section 83 of the RTA? — Proper exercise of discretion under section 83(2) and (3) of the RTA<br />Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Tenant alleged procedural unfairness due to lack of access to duty counsel, absence of interpreter, absence of mediation, and curtailment of submissions — Did the LTB breach the tenant's right to a procedurally fair hearing? — Standard of review for procedural fairness is correctness