After successfully having the original Application decision set aside at the Court of Appeal, Kelly Hart was successful as counsel for the Respondent in defeating a duty to defend rehearing Application brought by the National Art Gallery. The Court found that no allegations against the Applicant had any bearing on the Respondent and that therefore neither the respondent, nor their insurer owed the Applicant any duty to defend. The Application was dismissed with costs payable to the Respondent.
Following a nearly 4-week jury trial, lead lawyers Tara Lemke and Kelly Hart, assisted by
Gabriella Gader, were successful in securing a jury award of $1,040,000.00 for their personal
injury plaintiff client in a motor vehicle accident case after years of hard-fought litigation. As
the net award was in excess of the Defendants’ offer to settle, the Defendants were
additionally required to pay a significant six figure costs award to the Plaintiff.
Jeremy successfully represented our client in her appeal to the Social Security Tribunal of Canada (General Division). Our client was denied employment insurance benefits after the Canada Employment ommission accepted our client’s employer’s allegation that it terminated our client for “misconduct”. The Tribunal agreed with Jeremy’s submissions and overturned the Commission’s denial of our client’s employment insurance benefits.
Jeremy successfully represented the Estate Trustee in resisting the Plaintiff’s motion for occupancy at the deceased’s principal residence. The Court agreed with Jeremy’s submissions that the Plaintiff did not qualify as a “dependant” under the Succession Law Reform Act and held: “[the deceased] was not providing support or under legal obligation to provide support immediately before her death”. The Court agreed with Jeremy’s submission that the Plaintiff’s evidence on the deceased’s support obligations was sparse and awarded the Plaintiff only $200/month in support, which was later overturned on an appeal to the Divisional Court and the motion was dismissed in its entirety.
Jeremy successfully brought a motion to compel the Plaintiff to post security for costs in this action against our client. The motion judge granted the motion after agreeing that the Plaintiff’s claim of impecuniosity was “completely unreliable” and the claim was “almost certain to fail” on the merits. The action was later dismissed on a motion for the Plaintiff’s failure to post the security that was ordered.
Jeremy successfully represented a physiotherapist against several complaints to the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario. The Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (“the Committee”) undertook a thorough review of the evidence and arguments of the parties, and was persuaded to take no action in relation to any of the complaints. The Applicant appealed the decision to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld the Committee’s decision upon appeal.
Jeremy successfully represented one of the defendants against the plaintiff's motion for a further discovery of our client. The Court agreed with Jeremy’s submissions that the affidavit evidence the plaintiff relied on had several deficiencies, and that the plaintiff was unable to show that the further discovery being sought would be useful, reasonable, or proportionate. The motion against our client was dismissed with costs.
Jeremy successfully represented the Defendant Golf Course against the Plaintiff who brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction. The Plaintiff alleged that an unreasonable amount of golf balls were landing on his property and brought a motion to the Court seeking an Order that the Defendant Golf Course be prohibited from allowing golf balls from landing on his property, amongst other things. The Court agreed with all of Jeremy’s submissions and dismissed the motion against our client. The Court awarded costs to our client, which were nearly 3 times lower than the costs incurred by the Plaintiff in bringing his unsuccessful motion.
Jeremy successfully resisted the proposed intervention by Ecojustice in the appeal of our Huang v Fraser Hillary’s Limited trial victory. Amongst other things, the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that intervention as a friend of the Court was not appropriate because the appeal concerned a private dispute, the proposed intervenor’s submissions would not be helpful, and the proposed intervention would cause an injustice to our client.
Jeremy was co-counsel for the Defendant, David Hillary, on this environmental contamination case. Mr. Hillary was a homeowner that lived in a property beside a dry cleaning facility. Before Mr. Hillary purchased the property there were dry cleaning spills into the ground that sunk beneath the property Mr. Hillary later purchased. The Plaintiff sued the dry cleaning company and Mr. Hillary for the remediation costs of the contamination that flowed downgradient from these properties to the Plaintiff’s property. Our firm successfully defended our client at trial on all 4 causes of action (Nuisance, Negligence, Trespass and liability under s99 of the Environmental Protections Act) that were raised in relation to the flow of dry cleaning contamination. The trial judge dismissed the claim in its entirety against our client on this case where damages were assessed at $1.8M.
