Décisions de la Cour

• 2025-03-20 Solmar Inc. v. Hall, 2025 ONSC 1703 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Anti-SLAPP motion — Strategic litigation against public participation — Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s defamation claim under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act — Whether the Defendant’s motion should succeed — Framework for anti-SLAPP motions under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, including public interest, substantial merit, valid defences, and weighing of harms<br />Statutory interpretation — Public interest — Anti-SLAPP motion — Defendant’s Facebook post alleged corruption and bribery by Plaintiff and town councillors — Whether the expression related to a matter of public interest under section 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act — Public interest test does not consider the quality or merits of the expression<br />Torts — Defamation — Substantial merit — Facebook post accused Plaintiff of corruption and bribery — Whether Plaintiff’s defamation claim has substantial merit under section 137.1(4)(a)(i) of the Courts of Justice Act — Words published to third parties and likely to lower Plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable people<br />Evidence — Defamation — Fair comment defence — Defendant alleged Facebook post was fair comment — Whether Defendant’s statements were based on fact and recognizable as comment — Defence of fair comment requires a factual basis and absence of malice — Defendant’s statements found to be unsubstantiated and motivated by malice<br />Torts — Defamation — Weighing of harms — Anti-SLAPP motion — Whether harm to Plaintiff outweighed public interest in protecting Defendant’s expression under section 137.1(4)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act — Plaintiff’s reputational harm and potential loss of development approvals outweighed public interest in Defendant’s inflammatory and unsubstantiated accusations
• 2025-03-20 Thillainathan v. Hindu Temple Society of Canada, 2025 ONSC 1782 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Business associations — Corporate governance — Appointment of monitor — Applicant sought to amend the Notice of Application to request the appointment of a monitor to oversee the Respondent organization’s affairs — Court dismissed the request due to lack of details, including identity of the proposed monitor and payment terms — Can a monitor be appointed without sufficient particulars? — Courts require specific information to appoint a monitor under applicable statutes<br />Civil procedure — Amendments to pleadings — Timetable compliance — Applicant sought leave to amend the Notice of Application to include new claims and evidence — Respondent opposed, citing delays and non-compliance with court-ordered timetables — Should amendments be allowed despite procedural delays? — Rule 26.01 permits amendments unless prejudice or abuse of process is demonstrated<br />Evidence — Admissibility of affidavits — Hearsay and relevance — Applicant sought to file additional affidavits alleging financial mismanagement and governance issues — Respondent argued affidavits contained inadmissible hearsay and irrelevant allegations — Should additional affidavits be admitted after the timetable has expired? — Rule 39.01(5) limits affidavit evidence to non-contentious facts unless leave is granted<br />Civil procedure — Mootness — Challenge to 2021 election — Applicant’s challenge to the 2021 Annual General Meeting and election of directors deemed moot as none of the elected directors remain in office — Does the passage of time render the relief sought unnecessary? — Borowski test applied to determine mootness<br />Civil procedure — Discontinuance of claims — Former directors and officers — Application initially named 26 former directors and officers as Respondents — Court ordered discontinuance against these individuals as they were no longer involved in the organization’s governance — Should claims against former directors and officers be maintained? — Only necessary parties should remain in litigation
• 2025-03-20 Arc Compute v. Anton Allen, Michael Buchel et al., 2025 ONSC 1745 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Labour and employment — Fiduciary duties — Breach of fiduciary obligations — Departing employees — Misuse of confidential information — Solicitation of clients and employees — Corporate opportunity doctrine — Springboarding — Whether fiduciary duties extend post-employment — Test for fiduciary obligations — Framework governing fiduciary duties and corporate opportunities<br />Civil procedure — Interlocutory injunctions — Test for granting injunctions — Serious issue to be tried — Irreparable harm — Balance of convenience — Whether injunction should restrain competition, solicitation, and use of confidential information — Governing principles from RJR MacDonald v. Canada<br />Contracts — Employment agreements — Restrictive covenants — Non-solicitation clauses — Confidentiality obligations — Breach of employment contracts — Retention of confidential information — Solicitation of clients — Whether restrictive covenants were enforceable — Interpretation of contractual terms regarding confidentiality and solicitation<br />Obligations — Corporate opportunity doctrine — Fiduciary obligations — Misappropriation of business opportunities — Use of confidential information to compete — Whether fiduciaries can appropriate opportunities of the employer — Remedies for breach of fiduciary obligations — Governing principles from Canadian Aero v. O’Malley
• 2025-03-20 Mari v. Sanjer et al., 2025 ONSC 1787 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Contracts — Real estate transactions — Failed closings — Summary judgment — Plaintiff sought summary judgment for damages arising from a failed real estate transaction — Defendants acknowledged inability to close — Is this a proper case for summary judgment under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure? — Rule 20 allows summary judgment where no genuine issue requiring a trial exists<br />Obligations — Agreements of Purchase and Sale — Amended agreements — Consideration — Seal — Whether the original APS or the AAPS should be used to assess damages — AAPS lacked fresh consideration and was not signed under seal — Original APS governs damages — Freidman Equity Developments Inc. v Final Note, 2000 SCC 34; Gilbert Steel Ltd. v. University Construction Ltd., (1976) 12 O.R. (2d) 19 (C.A.)<br />Property — Additional damages — Carrying costs — Costs thrown away — Plaintiff claimed damages for insurance, property taxes, utilities, and legal fees — Are these additional damages recoverable? — Damages naturally flowing from failed closings are recoverable except for real estate commissions — Total additional damages awarded: $3,346.79<br />Sale — Mitigation of damages — Duty to mitigate — Plaintiff relisted property after failed closings — Defendants argued plaintiff failed to mitigate by not accepting their reduced offer — Did the plaintiff fulfill her duty to mitigate? — Plaintiff acted reasonably by relisting and selling to an arm’s length purchaser — Duty to mitigate does not require repeated reliance on defaulting purchasers — Azzarello v Shawqi, 2019 ONCA 820
• 2025-03-19 R. v. Guerra Guerra, 2025 ONSC 1741 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Recalling witnesses — Crown application to recall a witness during its case — Relevance of evidence to Defence theory — Whether the Crown can recall a witness to address omissions in earlier testimony — Judicial discretion to allow recall before the close of the Crown's case — Trial fairness as the guiding principle — Prejudice to the accused mitigated by cross-examination and recalling other witnesses<br />Evidence — Relevance and materiality — Defence theory emerging during trial — Crown seeking to recall a witness to address Defence's suggestion that the victim possessed a weapon — Whether the evidence is relevant to the issue of self-defence — Governing principles for recalling witnesses to correct omissions or address new issues<br />Evidence — Prejudice to the accused — Witness recall after observing other testimony — Whether the timing of the Crown's application prejudices the accused's ability to make full answer and defence — Mitigation of prejudice through cross-examination and recalling other witnesses — Test for balancing trial fairness and prejudice

Cour divisionnaire - décisions récentes

• 2025-03-20 Teper v. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 1717 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Access to information — Procedural fairness — Merging of appeals — Applicant sought judicial review of IPC's decision not to merge two appeals related to access to information requests — Did the IPC's refusal to merge appeals deny the Applicant procedural fairness? — Tribunals have discretion to determine their own procedures, including whether to merge appeals — Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) applied<br />Municipalities — Freedom of information — Custody or control of records — Applicant requested records under MFIPPA related to an independent investigator retained by the Integrity Commissioner — Did the IPC err in finding that the TDSB did not have custody or control of the requested records? — Two-part test from Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) applied<br />Municipalities — Freedom of information — Reasonable search — Applicant alleged that the TDSB failed to conduct a reasonable search for records under section 17 of MFIPPA — Did the IPC err in finding that the TDSB conducted a reasonable search? — IPC's decision found reasonable based on evidence and statutory interpretation<br />Administrative law — Standard of review — Reasonableness — Applicant argued for correctness standard in interpreting "custody or control" under MFIPPA — Court applied Vavilov framework, finding reasonableness standard appropriate for IPC's decision — Presumption of deference to administrative decision-makers upheld
• 2025-03-19 Dhaliwal v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario, 2025 CanLII 22518 (ON SCDC)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Professional discipline — Abuse of process — Procedural irregularities — Veterinarians Act — Allegations of inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings — Whether the Discipline Committee failed to comply with statutory requirements under ss. 24 and 25 of the Veterinarians Act — Whether delay caused significant prejudice to the appellant — Test for abuse of process from Abrametz applied — No inordinate delay or prejudice found — Veterinarians Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. V.3<br />Civil procedure — Motions to dismiss — Procedural fairness — Whether the referral of complaints to the Discipline Committee complied with statutory requirements — Two-stage referral process under the Veterinarians Act — Whether the appellant was prejudiced by the lack of detailed allegations in the initial referral — Notice of Hearing provided sufficient particulars — No procedural unfairness found — Berge and Walia jurisprudence applied<br />Evidence — Expert evidence — Admissibility — Impartiality of expert witnesses — Whether the College’s experts were qualified and impartial — Challenges to conflicting expert reports and assumptions made in second reports — Discipline Committee found no basis to exclude expert evidence — Weight of evidence determined by the Committee — Mohan and White Burgess principles applied<br />Administrative law — Interim suspension — Statutory Powers Procedure Act — Whether the Discipline Committee erred in granting an Interim Suspension Order — Suspension justified based on findings of professional misconduct in multiple cases — Interim suspension credited toward final penalty — Mootness of appeal on interim suspension — Dua jurisprudence applied<br />Professional responsibility — Penalty and costs — Disciplinary sanctions — Whether penalties, including suspensions and costs, were clearly unfit or unreasonable — Consideration of prior complaints and repeated failures to heed advice — Costs awarded at two-thirds of the College’s expenses — Deference to Discipline Committee’s expertise in determining penalties — Reid and Mitelman jurisprudence applied
• 2025-03-19 Van Every (Litigation guardian of) v. Findlay, 2025 ONSC 757 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Removal of counsel — Conflict of interest — Respondent’s law firm alleged to have a conflict due to prior involvement in the case — Whether the motions judge erred in dismissing the motion to remove counsel — Test for removal of counsel in cases of conflict of interest — High threshold for removal motions — Balancing fairness to the parties and the integrity of the judicial system<br />Evidence — Lawyer as witness — Conflict of interest — Whether a lawyer from the same firm as a potential witness can continue to act as counsel — Lawyer’s credibility at issue in professional negligence claim — Application of principles from Mazinani v. Bindoo and Oliver, Derksen, Arkin v. Fulmyk — Governing rule on lawyers acting as both witnesses and advocates<br />Professional responsibility — Parties under disability — Litigation guardian’s waiver of conflict of interest — Whether waiver by litigation guardian is sufficient to address conflict — Court’s parens patriae jurisdiction to protect parties under disability — Special considerations for parties under disability in removal motions — Aleksa v. Henley and Weidenfield v. Ontario (Education) applied<br />Statutory interpretation — Standard of review — Discretionary decisions — Standard of review for removal of counsel motions — Whether the motions judge misdirected themselves or gave insufficient weight to relevant considerations — Application of Ontario v. Chartis Insurance Co. of Canada — Reviewable errors in discretionary decisions
• 2025-03-19 2477791 Ontario Inc. v. Top Art Roofing Ltd., 2025 ONSC 1482 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Appeals — Adjournments — Procedural fairness — Appellant sought adjournment of trial and appeal due to unavailability of witnesses and transcripts — Whether denial of adjournment at trial and appeal stages resulted in procedural unfairness — Adjournments are discretionary and require reasonable efforts to avoid delays — Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 61.05(1), 61.09(1), 61.09(3), 61.13 — Appeal dismissed for failure to perfect and comply with procedural rules<br />Construction — Roofing contracts — Disputes over payment and deficiencies — Appellant alleged deficiencies in roofing work and withheld payment — Respondent counterclaimed for unpaid invoices — Whether denial of adjournment at trial stage was justified — Trial judge’s discretion to deny adjournment upheld in absence of sufficient evidence of extenuating circumstances — Lee v. Mo, 2019 ONSC 3031 applied<br />Evidence — Appeals — Missing transcripts — Appellant failed to order and file trial transcripts necessary for appeal — Whether appeal could proceed without transcripts or reasons from the lower court — Appeal dismissed due to lack of evidence required to assess trial judge’s decision — Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 61.05(1), 61.09(1), 61.09(3), 61.13 — Governing principles for transcript requirements in appeals
• 2025-03-19 The Effort Trust Company v. Perron, 2025 ONSC 1632 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Lease — Residential tenancies — Abatement of rent — Fire damage — Uninhabitable rental unit — Tenant unable to occupy unit but continued paying rent — Landlord delayed repairs due to COVID-19 — Did the Landlord and Tenant Board err in ordering an abatement of rent? — Section 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 requires landlords to maintain units in a good state of repair — Tribunal’s decision upheld as correct<br />Administrative law — Jurisdiction — Appeals from administrative tribunals — Landlord appealed LTB decision to Divisional Court under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 — Whether the appeal raised a question of law or mixed fact and law — Court found no jurisdiction to hear appeal on mixed fact and law — Standard of review for questions of law is correctness<br />Contracts — Frustration of contract — Tenancy agreement — Fire rendered rental unit uninhabitable — Landlord argued doctrine of frustration applied to terminate obligations — Court found frustration inapplicable as tenancy was terminated by mutual consent — Frustration would have required return of rent paid after the fire — Doctrine not relevant to the tribunal’s decision