Décisions de la Cour

• 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
• 2025-04-23 Re Organic Garage, 2025 ONSC 2476 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Bankruptcy and insolvency — Proof of claim — Disallowance of claims — Current Liability Component — Trustee disallowed $2,917,423.11 as a debt obligation owed by the Bankrupt to Oragin — Whether the Trustee erred in determining the transaction was not a loan — Evidence of repayment terms, interest payments, and economic reality considered — Trustee’s decision overturned for this component — Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, ss. 124, 135<br />Bankruptcy and insolvency — Proof of claim — Disallowance of claims — Long Term Liability Component — Trustee disallowed $3,342,857.78 as a debt obligation owed by the Bankrupt to Oragin — Whether the Trustee erred in determining the transaction was an equity infusion — Lack of repayment terms, interest payments, and supporting documentation — Trustee’s decision upheld for this component — Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, ss. 124, 135<br />Bankruptcy and insolvency — Proof of claim — Disallowance of claims — Note Payable Component — Trustee disallowed $500,000 as a debt obligation owed by the Bankrupt to Oragin — Whether the Trustee erred in determining the transaction was not a loan — Absence of a promissory note, repayment terms, or interest payments — Trustee’s decision upheld for this component — Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, ss. 124, 135<br />Bankruptcy and insolvency — Standard of review — Trustee’s disallowance of claims — Whether the Trustee’s decision should be reviewed for correctness or palpable and overriding error — Mixed questions of fact and law reviewed for palpable and overriding error — Pure questions of law reviewed for correctness — Housen v. Nikolaisen framework applied<br />Bankruptcy and insolvency — Evidentiary standard — Proof of claim — Whether the creditor met the evidentiary standard under section 124(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act — Creditor must provide relevant and probative evidence to substantiate the claim — Trustee entitled to investigate and disallow claims lacking sufficient evidence — Mamczasz Electrical Ltd. v. South Beach Homes Ltd. test applied
• 2025-04-22 Guilbault v. McCall, 2025 ONSC 2274 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Costs — Full recovery costs — Offer to Settle — Applicant sought full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, claiming her offer was “nearly identical” to the final order — Court found significant differences between the offer and the final order, including child support, s. 7 expenses, and life insurance provisions — Did the applicant meet the conditions for full recovery costs? — Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules applied<br />Family — Costs — Unreasonable behaviour — Applicant alleged respondent acted unreasonably by failing to respond to her Offer to Settle — Court found the respondent had responded with a detailed offer and engaged in settlement discussions — Did the respondent’s behaviour warrant a costs penalty under Rules 24(7) and (8)? — Rules 24(7) and (8) of the Family Law Rules applied<br />Civil procedure — Costs — Apportionment of costs — Divided success — Proportionality — Court considered divided success, proportionality, and the respondent’s self-represented status — Applicant’s legal fees deemed disproportionate for a one-issue case — How should costs be apportioned in light of divided success and proportionality? — Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules applied
• 2025-04-22 R. v. A.G., 2025 ONSC 2412 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Evidence — Admissibility of videotaped statements — Section 715.1 of the Criminal Code — Complainant provided a videotaped statement to police approximately three years and nine months after the alleged offences — Was the statement taken within a reasonable time of the alleged offences? — Determination of “reasonable time” based on case-specific factors, including delayed disclosure by child complainants — Ruling that the statement was admissible<br />Statutory interpretation — Section 715.1 of the Criminal Code — Applicability to complainants over the age of 18 at the time of testimony — Does section 715.1 apply to adult complainants if the alleged offences occurred when they were under 18? — Statutory language does not limit application to child witnesses — Legislative intent to minimize trauma for survivors of childhood sexual abuse<br />Evidence — Reliability of memory — Delayed disclosure of childhood sexual abuse — Complainant’s ability to recall details of repeated incidents of sexual assault — Does delayed disclosure undermine the reliability of the complainant’s memory to the extent that the videotaped statement should be inadmissible? — Court found complainant’s memory sufficiently reliable despite generalized recollections of repeated incidents

Cour divisionnaire - décisions récentes

• 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