Décisions de la Cour

• 2025-04-08 SCHINDLER v. DFIV CORP, 2025 ONSC 2180 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Lease — Interpretation of lease terms — Inclusion of basement — Tenant argued that use of the basement was an implied term of the lease — Lease specified 950 square feet for the first floor only — Whether the basement was included in the leased premises — Officious bystander and business efficacy tests applied — Lease did not include the basement — Commercial Tenancies Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.7<br />Lease — Breach of lease — Unauthorized use of basement — Installation of heat pumps — Tenant placed equipment in the basement and installed heat pumps on the exterior without Landlord’s consent — Tenant turned off air conditioning to the residential tenant’s unit — Whether these actions breached the lease — Breaches found under ss. 30 and 36 of the lease<br />Lease — Quiet enjoyment — HVAC system — Tenant alleged Landlord failed to provide a properly functioning HVAC system and interfered with quiet enjoyment by locking the basement door — Landlord’s actions did not constitute a breach of quiet enjoyment — Tenant responsible for ensuring HVAC system met its operational needs — Commercial Tenancies Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.7<br />Lease — Termination of lease — Right of re-entry — Landlord issued Notices of Breach and Notice of Termination — Tenant failed to remedy breaches — Landlord entitled to terminate the lease and retake possession of the premises — Relief from forfeiture not pleaded or argued — Commercial Tenancies Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.7, ss. 19, 23
• 2025-04-08 R. v. T.B., 2025 ONSC 2160 (CanLII)
  Key Words:
• 2025-04-07 Garcia v. West, 2025 ONSC 2109 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Jurisdiction — Unified Family Court — Life insurance proceeds — Separation agreement — Does the Unified Family Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute between the Applicant and the second Respondent, who is not a party to the separation agreement? — Unified Family Court jurisdiction limited to family-specific matters under section 21.8 of the Courts of Justice Act<br />Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Family Law Rules — Availability of summary judgment under Rule 16(12)(c)(i) — Can a summary judgment motion proceed without the filing of an Answer? — Summary judgment available if the time for serving an Answer has expired — Family Law Rules, Rule 16(1), Rule 16(12)(c)(i)<br />Civil procedure — Setting aside orders — Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules — Factors for setting aside an order — Was the Applicant’s motion to set aside the summary judgment order brought promptly, with a reasonable explanation for default, and an arguable defence? — Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen factors applied<br />Estates and trusts — Life insurance proceeds — Separation agreement — Proper forum for claims — Should the Applicant’s claim for life insurance proceeds allegedly paid in violation of a separation agreement be adjudicated in the Unified Family Court or the general Superior Court? — Unified Family Court not the appropriate forum for trust claims between unrelated individuals
• 2025-04-07 Dawood v. Popes Property Holdings Inc. et al, 2025 ONSC 2144 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Reverse summary judgment — Plaintiff sought summary judgment against corporate and personal defendants for breach of agreement of purchase and sale — Defendants sought reverse summary judgment to dismiss claim against personal defendant — Is this an appropriate case for summary judgment? — Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Hyrniak v. Mauldin test applied<br />Contracts — Breach of agreement of purchase and sale — Assignment of agreement — Corporate defendant failed to complete transaction after assignment — Should the unopposed motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant be granted? — Summary judgment granted against corporate defendant for damages of $224,610.85<br />Contracts — Assignment of contract — Personal liability — Personal defendant signed assignment before corporate defendant’s incorporation — Does personal liability arise under the agreement? — Section 21 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act applied — No personal liability found<br />Business associations — Corporate veil — Piercing the corporate veil — Personal defendant acted as sole director of corporate defendant — Plaintiff argued for personal liability based on corporate defendant’s failure to complete transaction — Should the corporate veil be pierced? — No evidence of fraud or improper conduct — Corporate veil not pierced<br />Sale — Reverse summary judgment — Notice requirements — Defendants sought dismissal of claim against personal defendant via reverse summary judgment — Plaintiff argued insufficient notice of cross-motion — Should the court entertain the motion for reverse summary judgment? — Court found sufficient factual notice and dismissed claim against personal defendant
• 2025-04-07 Toronto Star v. His Majesty the King, 2025 ONSC 2146 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Constitution — Open court principle — Virtual access — Media access to criminal trials — Public access to court proceedings as a constitutional right — Does the open court principle require virtual access to proceedings? — Open court principle does not guarantee physical or virtual presence — Judicial discretion governs virtual access requests — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(b)<br />Rights and freedoms — Open court principle — Media access — Public interest in court transparency — Does the open court principle mandate virtual access for media? — Open court principle satisfied by physical courtroom access — Virtual access extends but does not define the principle — Case law affirms no obligation for virtual access — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(b)<br />Criminal procedure — Virtual access in criminal trials — Judicial discretion — Conditions on virtual access — Can courts impose limitations on virtual access to ensure proper administration of justice? — Virtual access limited to jury presence and evidence presentation — Restrictions on recording or broadcasting virtual feeds — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 648(1)

Cour divisionnaire - décisions récentes

• 2025-04-08 1000758840 Ontario Ltd. v. City of Toronto, 2025 ONSC 2084 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Municipalities — Encroachment permits — Patio construction — Municipal bylaws — Appeal dismissed substantially for reasons of lower court — Whether further approvals beyond encroachment permit required not addressed — Lower court’s decision did not consider application of municipal bylaws to patio construction or operation — Appeal dismissed on merits — Governing rule: Appeal dismissed as issues raised were not properly before the court<br />Evidence — Admissibility of expert evidence — Legal opinions — Lower court refused to admit legal opinions as evidence through appellant’s expert witness — Appellant sought to use legal opinions as evidence — Refusal to admit evidence deemed appropriate — Governing rule: Legal opinions inadmissible as evidence when improperly used to establish legal conclusions<br />Civil procedure — Fairness of process — Prematurity — Appellant argued process was unfair as issue of prematurity was not raised by parties or court — Lower court’s comments on prematurity deemed obiter dicta — Prematurity not necessary to decision on merits — Governing rule: Procedural fairness upheld where issue is relevant to merits and properly considered by lower court<br />Civil procedure — Costs — Indemnity — Security for costs — Appellant ordered to indemnify respondents on partial indemnity basis — Prior order for security for costs does not constrain costs award — Costs awarded to respondents in aggregate amount of $15,000 — Governing rule: Costs awarded on usual principles of partial indemnity, independent of prior security for costs order
• 2025-04-08 Gayle v. Oxton Court Apartments, 2025 ONSC 2157 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Extension of time — Filing deadlines — Appellant sought to appeal a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board but failed to file and serve a notice of appeal within the required time — Motion to extend time for filing and service was scheduled but appellant failed to submit motion materials by the deadline — Should the court grant an extension of time for filing and service? — Strict adherence to procedural deadlines required for appeals to proceed<br />Civil procedure — Consequences of non-compliance — Appellant failed to file motion materials by the prescribed deadline and did not upload them to Case Center — Motion could not proceed as scheduled — What are the consequences of failing to file motion materials within the prescribed deadlines? — Failure to comply with procedural requirements results in dismissal of the motion and inability to proceed with the appeal<br />Lease — Eviction — Automatic stay — Appellant’s failure to obtain an extension of time for filing a notice of appeal resulted in no appeal pending before the court — Automatic stay of eviction lifted — Does the failure to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal result in the lifting of the automatic stay of eviction? — Eviction order of the Landlord and Tenant Board enforceable in absence of an appeal
• 2025-04-07 Levitt Sheikh Chaudhri Swann LLP v. Third Eye Insights Inc., 2025 ONSC 1754 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Contracts — Formation of contract — Termination clause — Appeal from Small Claims Court decision finding that the parties entered into a contract requiring 30 days’ notice to terminate — Did the deputy judge err in finding that the parties agreed to a termination clause? — Standard of review for errors of law and mixed fact and law — Deputy judge’s findings upheld as reasonable and supported by evidence<br />Contracts — Enforceability of termination clause — Consideration — Appellant argued termination clause was unenforceable due to lack of new consideration — Deputy judge found no new consideration was required as the written agreement was the contract between the parties — Was the termination clause enforceable? — Principles of contract law regarding consideration applied<br />Civil procedure — Procedural fairness — Closing submissions — Appellant claimed denial of procedural fairness due to limitations on closing submissions — Deputy judge provided ample opportunity for submissions and asked appellant’s counsel if anything further needed to be added — Was there a breach of procedural fairness? — No breach found; procedural fairness requirements met
• 2025-04-07 The Effort Trust Company v. Perron, 2025 ONSC 2182 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Costs — Discretion of the court — Successful respondent sought costs of $807,728.16; appellant argued no costs should be awarded — Whether the court should award costs to the successful party in an appeal — Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 provide discretion to award costs based on fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality<br />Lease — Landlord and tenant — Costs in appeal proceedings — Landlord unsuccessful in appeal against tenant — Tenant awarded modest costs of $500.00 despite claiming over $800,000 — Whether the tenant’s costs claim was reasonable — Costs awarded to reflect inconvenience and attendance at court<br />Statutory interpretation — Costs — Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act — Rule 57.01 — Factors considered in awarding costs include complexity, amount claimed, importance of issues, and reasonable expectations of parties — Whether proportionality, fairness, and reasonableness govern costs awards — Modest costs awarded to successful party
• 2025-04-04 Darmar Farms Inc. v. Syngenta Canada Inc., 2025 ONSC 1941 (CanLII)
  Key Words: uploaded — longstanding — costs — materials — writing