It appears to me a rather challenging proposition for the defendants to suggest that I should actually interpret the phrases displayed prominently on this document, i.

The Defendants submit that in not permitting transcription of the Reasons for Decision for the summary judgment motion, Justice Wright committed a breach of natural justice because the parties have a fundamental right to have access to the Reasons for Decision.

If [the defendant] thinks he can wave away Meads v.

[A friend] and [the defendant] and a few of their friends were often to be found in some of Toronto's most posh neighbourhoods.

The appellant submits that the respondent has been unjustly enriched.

Breaking Bad, meet Breaking Bad Parents.

Why do written costs submissions frequently try to lead us into some sort of parallel universe where losers are actually winners? If you lost, don't re-write the facts to argue that you won.

There's an old saying: "Two Heads Are Better Than One".

Shakespeare once said that a rose by any other name smells as sweet.

Here it cannot be said that [insurance adjuster] balked at his cross-examination or that the Plaintiff was in any manner frustrated in doing a meaningful cross-examination.

The plaintiff was successful on the motion.

… a court can take into account erratic driving in conjunction with other pieces of evidence in determining whether there is evidence of some degree of impairment of the Accused's driving.