Decisions of the Court

• 2025-04-23 Mcdonald v. Guyana Goldfields Inc., 2025 ONSC 2431 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Class actions — Non-party production — Plaintiffs in a proposed class action sought production of documents from a non-party under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Should a non-party be compelled to produce documents central to the plaintiffs’ claims at the pre-certification stage? — Rule 30.10 permits non-party production where documents are relevant, probative, and not otherwise available<br />Evidence — Relevance of non-party documents — Plaintiffs alleged misrepresentation and governance failures by a corporation and sought documents from a non-party who had previously raised similar allegations — Are the requested documents relevant and probative to the plaintiffs’ claims? — Documents central to the allegations and known to exist are highly probative and necessary for fair adjudication<br />Contracts — Confidentiality agreements — Settlement agreements — Non-party cited confidentiality provisions in a settlement agreement to resist production of documents — Does a confidentiality provision preclude the production of relevant documents? — Confidentiality provisions do not override the court’s authority to compel production of relevant evidence<br />Securities — Class actions — Leave and certification motions — Plaintiffs sought non-party production before leave to proceed under the Ontario Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act — Is the motion for non-party production premature? — Courts balance the gatekeeping function of leave and certification with the need for relevant evidence to ensure fair adjudication
• 2025-04-23 Headrick v. McNeill, 2025 ONSC 2470 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Division of property — Sale of jointly owned home — Applicant sought sale of home and unequal division of proceeds to account for expenses incurred post-separation — Respondent noted in default and unable to purchase applicant’s share — Should the home be sold, and proceeds divided? — Jointly owned property to be sold, with net proceeds divided equally subject to adjustments for expenses and liens<br />Property — Reimbursement for expenses — Renovations and property taxes — Applicant claimed reimbursement for post-separation expenses incurred for the home — Respondent liable for half of renovation and tax costs — Is the applicant entitled to reimbursement? — Applicant awarded reimbursement for renovations and taxes from respondent’s share of sale proceeds<br />Property — Legal aid liens — Liens registered on title post-separation for respondent’s benefit — Should liens be paid from respondent’s share of sale proceeds? — Legal aid liens to be paid from respondent’s share of net sale proceeds<br />Social welfare — Spousal support — Respondent unemployed and receiving ODSP benefits — Applicant sought spousal support — Does respondent have the ability to pay spousal support? — Claim for spousal support dismissed due to respondent’s inability to pay<br />Family — Restraining order — Applicant sought restraining order against respondent — No compelling evidence presented to support restraining order — Should a restraining order be granted? — Claim for restraining order dismissed<br />Property — Personal belongings — Applicant sought access to retrieve personal belongings from jointly owned home — Respondent required to vacate during retrieval period — Should applicant be permitted to retrieve belongings? — Applicant granted access to retrieve belongings, with respondent absent during specified time
• 2025-04-22 Bjorkquist et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, 2025 ONSC 2413 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Citizenship and immigration — Suspension of declaration of invalidity — Extension of suspension — Constitutionality of ss. 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) of the Citizenship Act limiting derivative citizenship to first-generation Canadians born abroad — Whether the court should extend the suspension of the declaration of invalidity to allow Parliament to pass remedial legislation — Balancing public interest and rights-holders’ interests — Constitution Act, 1982, s. 52<br />Constitution — Charter of Rights — Remedies — Declaration of invalidity — Extension of suspension — Factors to consider in granting an extension of a suspension of invalidity — Extraordinary circumstances, including prorogation and dissolution of Parliament for a general election — Balancing public interest, legislative complexity, and rights-holders’ harm — Framework from Ontario v. G. and Carter v. Canada (A.G.) applied<br />Civil procedure — Costs — Public interest litigation — Applicants seeking substantial indemnity costs for responding to the motion — Whether substantial indemnity costs are warranted in the absence of scandalous or reprehensible conduct — Partial indemnity costs awarded to applicants for their contribution to holding the respondent accountable — Costs fixed at $10,983.60
• 2025-04-22 Cycle Toronto et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario et al., 2025 ONSC 2424 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Constitution — Charter of Rights — Section 7 — Fundamental justice — Target Bike Lane Removal Provision — Applicants allege infringement of rights to life and security of the person — Whether the removal of bike lanes is arbitrary, overly broad, or grossly disproportionate — Does the legislation violate the principles of fundamental justice? — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 — Test for Charter infringement<br />Civil procedure — Interlocutory injunctions — Test for granting injunctions — Serious issue to be tried — Irreparable harm — Balance of inconvenience — Whether the applicants met the three-part test for an interlocutory injunction — RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 — Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 101<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Section 7 — Public interest — Competing public interests — Whether the public interest in preserving bike lanes outweighs the presumption of public good in implementing legislation — Balancing Charter rights against legislative objectives — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 — Public interest considerations in Charter litigation<br />Transportation — Cycling infrastructure — Removal of bike lanes — Public safety — Congestion — Evidence of harm to cyclists — Whether removal of bike lanes increases risk of injury or death — Competing expert evidence on safety and congestion — Public interest in promoting cycling as a mode of transportation — Legislative Assembly of Ontario, November 2024
• 2025-04-22 MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, 2025 ONSC 2426 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Estates and trusts — Appointment of estate trustee — Removal of named estate trustees — Succeeding estate trustee — Estates of Robert Wilson MacKinnon and Maxine Roxella MacKinnon — Failure to administer estates for over 20 years — Court’s authority under Trustee Act, ss. 5(1), 37(1) — Test for passing over estate trustees — Welfare of beneficiaries as guiding principle — Order appointing professional estate trustee granted<br />Evidence — Codicil execution — Affidavit of execution — Rule 74.04(1)(d)(i)(C) of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Codicil handwritten by third party and witnessed by two individuals — Witnesses unavailable — Affidavit of third party attesting to due execution — Concerns about authenticity unsupported by evidence — Affidavit deemed sufficient evidence of due execution<br />Estates and trusts — Informal accounting — Respondent’s failure to administer estate — Requirement to provide accounting — Rule 74.15(1)(d) — Accounting limited to period after Robert Wilson MacKinnon’s death — Respondent ordered to provide statement of assets and actions taken regarding estate administration<br />Estates and trusts — Costs — Allocation of litigation costs — Respondent’s inaction and opposition to application — Costs awarded on full indemnity basis — Costs split between respondent personally and estate — Modern approach to costs in estate litigation — Public policy considerations in ensuring proper estate administration

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2025-04-17 Tulloch Geomatics Inc. v. Earth Boring Company Ltd., 2025 ONSC 2245 (CanLII)
  Key Words: inclusive — commence — fixed — writing — judicial
• 2025-04-17 Petrykowski v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada, 2025 ONSC 2307 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario — Applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision dismissing his discrimination claim under the Human Rights Code — Did the Tribunal act reasonably in dismissing the claim? — Standard of review for Tribunal decisions is reasonableness, except for procedural fairness issues — Tribunal’s decision upheld as reasonable and procedurally fair<br />Rights and freedoms — Discrimination — Prohibited grounds — Adverse effect discrimination — Applicant alleged constructive discrimination based on place of origin, age, and family status under s. 11(1) of the Human Rights Code — Tribunal found no connection to prohibited grounds — Does mode of study constitute a prohibited or analogous ground? — Tribunal reasonably found no jurisdiction over claims unrelated to enumerated grounds<br />Statutory interpretation — Procedural fairness — Written process — Adequacy of reasons — Applicant argued the Tribunal’s written process and reasons were procedurally unfair — Tribunal’s streamlined written process upheld as fair — Adequacy of reasons assessed under Vavilov framework — Reasons found sufficient to justify the decision within a range of reasonable outcomes
• 2025-04-16 Kraft v. Ontario (Securities Commission), 2025 ONSC 2266 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Securities — Insider tipping — Necessary course of business — Onus of proof — Tribunal found that the appellant bore the onus of proving that his disclosure of MNPI was made in the necessary course of business — Did the Tribunal err in its interpretation of s. 76(2) of the Securities Act? — “Necessary course of business” exception treated as an exception, not an element of the offence<br />Securities — Insider tipping — Necessary course of business — Objective test — Tribunal determined that the test for the NCOB exception under s. 76(2) of the Securities Act is objective — Did the Tribunal err in rejecting a subjective/objective test? — Objective standard upheld as consistent with legislative intent and securities regulation purposes<br />Securities — Insider tipping — Material non-public information — Necessary disclosure — Tribunal found that the appellant’s disclosure of MNPI to a third party was not necessary in the course of business — Did the Tribunal err in its assessment of necessity? — Tribunal considered factors such as lack of confidentiality agreement, absence of board approval, and personal reasons for disclosure<br />Securities — Material fact — Market impact — Tribunal found that the proposed expansion transaction and draft Transaction Documents constituted a material fact under the Securities Act — Did the Tribunal err in its materiality analysis? — Materiality assessed using an objective “market impact test” based on reasonable investor perspective<br />Constitution — Charter of Rights — Freedom of expression — Securities regulation — Tribunal found that s. 76(2) of the Securities Act infringed s. 2(b) of the Charter but was justified under s. 1 — Did the Tribunal err in its s. 1 analysis? — Objective necessity standard upheld as minimally impairing and proportionate to legislative objectives<br />Securities — Sanctions — Insider tipping — Tribunal imposed trading bans, director and officer bans, and monetary penalties on the appellant — Were the sanctions disproportionate or punitive? — Sanctions upheld as protective and preventive, addressing specific and general deterrence
• 2025-04-11 Birch Equities Limited v. Jacobs, 2025 ONSC 1827 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Lease — Residential tenancies — Rent abatement — Removal of roof deck — Tenant applied for rent reduction under section 130 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 — Landlord offered courtyard space as replacement — Did the removal of the roof deck constitute a discontinuance of a facility? — Governing principles for determining discontinuance versus change under section 130 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006<br />Administrative law — Standard of review — Correctness — Appeal from Landlord and Tenant Board decision — Landlord challenged findings of discontinuance and reasonableness — Did the Board err in law in its application of section 130 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006? — Standard of review for errors of law in administrative decisions<br />Property — Reasonableness of facility removal — Roof deck removal for maintenance — Landlord failed to consider alternatives to preserve or replace the deck — Did the Board err in finding the removal unreasonable under section 39 of O.Reg. 516/06? — Framework for assessing reasonableness of facility discontinuance<br />Statutory interpretation — Rent reduction — Value of discontinued facility — Board awarded 30% rent reduction based on tenant’s evidence of the roof deck’s importance — Did the Board err in interpreting section 39 of O.Reg. 516/06 to account for subjective tenant factors? — Principles for determining rent reductions under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006
• 2025-04-11 AIG Insurance Company v. Riddell, 2025 ONSC 1979 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Interlocutory decisions — Adjournment requests — Exceptional circumstances — Should the court grant judicial review of an interlocutory decision denying an adjournment request? — Judicial review of interlocutory decisions requires exceptional circumstances, including errors in principle or unfairness in the decision-making process<br />Insurance — Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) — Catastrophic impairment — Adjournment denial — Did the Licence Appeal Tribunal err in denying the adjournment request by failing to consider the complexity of the case, the interests of the parties, and counsel’s obligations? — Tribunal decisions must balance institutional concerns with fairness to the parties<br />Civil procedure — Stays of proceedings — Irreparable harm — Balance of convenience — Does the denial of the adjournment cause irreparable harm to the parties, and does the balance of convenience favour granting a stay? — Stay granted where denial of adjournment causes prejudice and alternatives are unreasonable