Décisions de la Cour

• 2025-06-16 McKinlay v. Currie et al., 2025 ONSC 3471 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Estates and trusts — Testamentary instruments — Validity of Proffered Document — Applicant sought declaration that Proffered Document was a valid testamentary instrument — Whether Proffered Document complied with formal requirements under SLRA — Court found Proffered Document did not meet statutory requirements for a valid will — Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26, s. 4(2)<br />Estates and trusts — Holograph wills — Requirements under SLRA — Applicant argued Proffered Document was a holograph will — Court held that a holograph will must be written entirely in the testator’s handwriting — Proffered Document contained key dispositive words written by another party — Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26, s. 6<br />Estates and trusts — Validation of testamentary documents — Section 21.1(1) of SLRA — Applicant sought validation of Proffered Document as expressing deceased’s testamentary intentions — Court found insufficient evidence of deliberate or fixed and final intention by deceased — Proffered Document not validated — Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26, s. 21.1(1)<br />Estates and trusts — Administration of estate — Validity of 2020 Will and Codicil — Court ordered estate to be administered in accordance with 2020 Will and Codicil — Proffered Document found invalid — Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will to be issued to applicant — Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26<br />Estates and trusts — Residuary bequest — Identification of intended beneficiary — Court declared Salvation Army office at 80 Bay Street N., Hamilton, Ontario, as intended beneficiary of residuary bequest under 2020 Will — Declaration unopposed and supported by Salvation Army respondent
• 2025-06-16 Ang v. Ang, 2025 ONSC 3563 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Costs — Full indemnity scale — Successful parties sought full indemnity costs due to plaintiff’s conduct, including fabrication of evidence, breach of court orders, and refusal to accept reasonable settlement offers — Should costs be awarded on a full indemnity scale? — Rule 49.13 allows consideration of non-compliant offers in assessing costs — Full indemnity costs awarded to successful parties<br />Civil procedure — Costs — Partial indemnity scale — Corporate defendants argued for partial indemnity costs for certain entities — Should costs payable by corporate entities be assessed on a partial indemnity scale? — Costs for corporate entities assessed on a partial indemnity scale at 50% of full indemnity<br />Evidence — Costs — Excessive hours and rates — Plaintiff challenged the number of hours and hourly rates claimed by defendants’ counsel, citing overlap and unsuccessful motions — Should the court reduce costs due to alleged excesses? — Plaintiff’s failure to provide a comparative costs outline undermined arguments — Costs reduced for certain interlocutory motions and case conferences<br />Civil procedure — Costs — Offers to settle — Defendants relied on multiple offers to settle, including a Rule 49 offer, to justify full indemnity costs — Plaintiff failed to accept reasonable offers, including one withdrawn before trial — Does failure to accept reasonable offers justify full indemnity costs? — Court considered offers under Rule 49.13 and awarded full indemnity costs
• 2025-06-16 Dunning v. Colliers Macaulay Nicolls Inc., 2025 ONSC 3561 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Costs orders — Non-compliance — Plaintiff failed to pay costs order of $5,086.08 — Defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action — Should the plaintiff's action be dismissed or stayed for failure to comply with a costs order? — Court applied principles from Rule 57.03(2) and Rule 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to stay the action, granting the plaintiff a final opportunity to comply<br />Contracts — Breach of contract — Allegations of theft of intellectual property — Plaintiff alleged defendants used her business plan without consent after a sham job interview — Should the plaintiff's action for breach of contract proceed despite her failure to comply with a costs order? — Court stayed the action pending compliance with costs orders<br />Evidence — Vexatious litigation — Abusive conduct — Plaintiff's submissions and behavior deemed frivolous, vexatious, and abusive — Does the plaintiff's conduct justify dismissal of her claim? — Court considered plaintiff's pattern of abusive litigation conduct in determining appropriate sanctions<br />Statutory interpretation — Rules of Civil Procedure — Enforcement of costs orders — Principles governing dismissal or stay of actions for non-compliance with interlocutory orders — What principles guide the court's discretion under Rules 57.03(2) and 60.12? — Court emphasized the importance of compliance with court orders to uphold the integrity of the justice system
• 2025-06-16 Banach v. Galaxy Digital Holdings Ltd., 2025 ONSC 3572 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Class actions — Certification and leave motions — Procedural disputes — Case conference addressing production issues and scheduling for combined motions under the Securities Act and Class Proceedings Act — Contested refusals arising from cross-examinations to be referred to Associate Justice unless substantive issues arise — Timetable for supplementary records, cross-examinations, and factums established — Procedural efficiency emphasized in managing pre-hearing disputes<br />Evidence — Production of documents — Affidavits — Rule 30.04 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure — Defendant referenced unpublished podcast in affidavit but refused to produce transcript — Plaintiff argued transcript must be produced under Rule 30.04 — Court ordered production of quoted portion of transcript but not the entire podcast — Governing rule: Rule 30.04 requires production of documents specifically referenced in affidavits if relevant<br />Evidence — Affidavits — Supporting documents — Defendant referenced chart in affidavit based on non-public information — Plaintiff sought production of background documents to understand chart — Court held request was more about affiant’s credibility and not subject to Rule 30.04 — No production order issued — Governing rule: Background information not explicitly referenced in affidavits is not subject to mandatory production under Rule 30.04<br />Securities — Class actions — Certification and leave motions — Procedural management — Timetable established for supplementary records, cross-examinations, and factums leading to hearing — Court emphasized procedural efficiency and limited production orders to avoid delays — Governing rule: Procedural disputes in class actions should be managed to ensure timely resolution of certification and leave motions
• 2025-06-12 Meen v Kaur, 2025 ONSC 3399 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Spousal support — Interim support — Entitlement and quantum — Applicant sponsored respondent’s immigration to Canada and undertook to provide financial support — Respondent receiving social assistance due to financial hardship — Applicant ordered to pay $1150 monthly in interim spousal support — Does the respondent’s financial need and the applicant’s means justify the quantum? — Divorce Act, RSC 1995, c 3 (2nd Supp), s 15.2(1), (2)<br />Citizenship and immigration — Sponsorship undertaking — Impact on spousal support — Applicant’s sponsorship undertaking required financial support for respondent for three years — Sponsorship obligations considered in determining spousal support entitlement and quantum — Does the sponsorship undertaking create a contractual basis for spousal support? — Singh v Singh, 2013 ONSC 6476; Gidey v Abay, 2007 CanLII 40212<br />Family — Costs — Motion costs — Successful party entitled to costs — Respondent awarded $3500 in costs due to applicant’s conduct unnecessarily complicating the motion — Were the costs reasonable and proportionate? — Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43, s 131; Family Law Rules, r 24(1), (12)

Cour divisionnaire - décisions récentes

• 2025-06-13 Cervantes v. Pizza Nova Take Out Ltd., 2025 ONSC 3301 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Motions for leave to appeal — Costs — Plaintiff sought leave to appeal the decision of Glustein, J. dated December 17, 2024 — Franchisee defendants also sought leave to appeal — Should leave to appeal be granted? — Costs for each motion fixed at $5,000 as agreed by the parties — Framework governing motions for leave to appeal and fixing of costs
• 2025-06-13 Kepinski and Boswell v. Drabinsky, 2025 ONSC 3304 (CanLII)
  Key Words: inclusive — motions — fixed — writing — leave
• 2025-06-13 TKS Holdings Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2025 ONSC 3309 (CanLII)
  Key Words: reserved — inclusive — appearing — quantum — fixed
• 2025-06-13 Ledsham v. Hanna et al, 2025 CanLII 56914 (ON SCDC)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Jurisdiction — Judicial review — Interlocutory orders in criminal proceedings — Applicant sought judicial review of Ontario Court of Justice orders dismissing applications for jury trial, change of venue, and dismissal of charges — Does the Divisional Court have jurisdiction to review criminal orders? — Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction to review criminal orders under the Judicial Review Procedure Act — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, governs criminal appeals and certiorari applications<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Fair trial rights — Procedural fairness — Applicant alleged procedural unfairness and bias in criminal proceedings, jeopardizing fair trial rights under s. 11(d) of the Charter — Does the alleged denial of procedural fairness justify judicial review? — Judicial review unavailable in this forum; fair trial rights must be addressed through proper criminal appeal mechanisms<br />Civil procedure — Frivolous or vexatious proceedings — Rule 2.1 — Applicant’s motion dismissed as frivolous and vexatious — Does the motion meet the threshold for dismissal under Rule 2.1? — Rule 2.1 applies to clearly abusive proceedings apparent on the face of pleadings — Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, applied<br />Constitution — Access to courts — Vexatious litigants — Applicant’s access to courts considered for restriction due to prior vexatious proceedings — Should the court impose restrictions on access to justice? — No restrictions imposed; insufficient pattern of vexatious conduct established — Court retains discretion to impose restrictions in future if further vexatious proceedings occur
• 2025-06-12 Partap Law Medicine Professional Corporation (formerly Di-Med Services Limited) v. Minister of Health, 2025 ONSC 3351 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Tribunal jurisdiction — Health Services Appeal and Review Board — Whether the Board has jurisdiction to conduct a hearing de novo under s. 24.9(1)2 of the Independent Health Facilities Act — Tribunal’s authority to review Ministerial decisions — Interpretation of statutory provisions governing administrative tribunals<br />Health — Procedural fairness — Bootstrapping — Minister of Health — Whether the Minister improperly expanded the legal basis of the decision during the Board hearing — Allegations of procedural unfairness and improper reliance on new arguments — Independent Health Facilities Act, s. 24.3(1), s. 24.9(1)<br />Health — Tribunal authority — Hearing de novo — Whether the Health Services Appeal and Review Board misconstrued its authority under s. 24.9(1) of the Independent Health Facilities Act — Scope of review powers — Tribunal’s ability to hear new evidence and arguments<br />Civil procedure — Intervention — Friend of the court — Leave to intervene — Whether the Health Services Appeal and Review Board should be granted leave to intervene to make submissions on the interpretation of s. 24.9(1)2 of the Independent Health Facilities Act — Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 13.02