Purchase This Domain

Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Appellate review — Bank sought summary judgment against guarantor of corporate loan — Motion judge granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring trial — Did the motion judge err in determining that this was a proper case for summary judgment? — Test for summary judgment under Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rr. 20.01, 20.04(1) — Appellate deference to discretionary decisions of motion judgesContracts — Personal guarantees — Duty of lender — Appellant argued Bank had a duty to ensure she understood the consequences of signing a personal guarantee — Motion judge found no special relationship or duty of care owed by the Bank — Does a lender owe a duty to explain loan instruments to a guarantor? — Familial relationships and undue influence — Test for manifestly disadvantageous transactionsContracts — Non est factum defence — Appellant claimed she did not understand the nature of the personal guarantee due to limited English proficiency and lack of legal advice — Motion judge found appellant was a sophisticated party with sufficient knowledge to understand the guarantee — Did the motion judge err in rejecting the non est factum defence? — Test for non est factum and its application to guarantorsEvidence — Procedural fairness — Self-represented litigants — Appellant alleged procedural unfairness due to refusal to allow amended pleadings and reliance on her own discovery transcript — Motion judge declined to consider amended statement of defence and excluded appellant’s discovery transcript under r. 39.04(2) — Did the motion judge err in denying procedural fairness? — Rules governing amendments to pleadings and admissibility of discovery transcripts

Constitution — Charter of Rights — Section 10(b) breaches — Right to counsel — Trial judge found three breaches of the appellant’s s. 10(b) Charter rights, including delay in informing of the right to counsel and questioning before counsel was accessed — Did the trial judge err in balancing the Grant factors to admit evidence? — Framework from R. v. Grant applied to determine admissibility under s. 24(2) of the CharterCriminal procedure — Evidence admissibility — Charter breaches — Appellant challenged the trial judge’s decision to admit evidence obtained after s. 10(b) breaches — Whether the trial judge erred in concluding the handgun and drugs were lawfully obtained despite Charter violations — Deferential appellate review of Grant factor analysisEvidence — Charter breaches — Impact on protected interests — Appellant argued trial judge underemphasized the seriousness of police conduct and its impact on Charter rights — Whether the trial judge properly weighed the seriousness of breaches and their effect on the appellant’s rights — Grant framework applied to assess admissibility of real evidenceRights and freedoms — Sentencing — State misconduct — Appellant sought increased credit for state misconduct due to s. 10(b) Charter breaches — Whether the trial judge erred in assessing the seriousness of the breaches for sentencing purposes — No reversible error found in trial judge’s assessment of Charter-infringing conduct

Municipalities — Zoning by-laws — Legal non-conforming use — Municipality sought injunction to restrain property uses allegedly contravening zoning by-laws — Application judge found uses not permitted under current by-law or saved under prior by-law — Did the application judge err in applying the test for legal non-conforming use? — Test from Saint Romuald (City) v. Olivier applied — Fact-driven analysis upheld on appealProperty — Zoning — Legal non-conforming use — Business operating on property for over 36 years — Application judge found uses too remote from prior lawful activities — Did the application judge err in determining legal non-conforming use? — Test for acquired rights under zoning by-laws correctly appliedEvidence — Expert opinion — Zoning by-laws — Application judge gave no weight to expert opinions on lawful use — Did the application judge err in disregarding expert evidence? — Court may reject expert evidence if unnecessary for fact-finding — No error in rejecting opinions inconsistent with documentary evidenceCivil procedure — Applications versus actions — Rule 38.10 — Appellants argued matter should have been converted to an action — Did the application judge err in failing to convert the application? — Issue raised for the first time on appeal — No prejudice demonstrated — Application procedure appropriateCivil procedure — Costs — Substantial indemnity costs — Application judge awarded costs without hearing submissions or providing reasons — Did the application judge err in awarding costs? — Leave to appeal costs required under s. 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act — No error in awarding costs akin to partial indemnity