Abrams

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion for leave to file a statement of claim and for an extension of time to serve the notice of action and statement of claim on the defendant, his mother.

The notice of action was issued in 2014 but never served, and the underlying claims dated back to 1980.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide independent evidence justifying the delay, the defendant reasonably inferred the claim was abandoned, and the defendant would suffer prejudice due to the passage of time, her declining health, and the death of a key witness.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an ex parte motion for default judgment against the defendant bank.

The bank had filed a statement of defence late, but before the motion was heard.

The plaintiff argued the registrar should not have accepted the late pleading.

The Master dismissed the motion, holding that default judgment cannot be granted once a statement of defence is filed, and any further steps must be taken on notice to the defendants.

The plaintiffs commenced a defamation action against the defendants and noted them in default after they failed to deliver a notice of intent to defend.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside the noting in default, arguing irregularities in service and a minimal delay in responding once they became aware of the claim.

The court granted the motion, finding that the delay was minimal, there was no prejudice to the plaintiffs, and the action should be determined on its merits rather than on a technical breach.

The plaintiff moved for an order requiring the defendant to produce a second corporate representative for examination for discovery.

The plaintiff had already commenced the examination of the defendant's current General Manager, who was not employed by the defendant at the time of the incident but had informed himself by speaking with the proposed second representative.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the first representative was unable to answer questions or that the plaintiff would be deprived of a meaningful discovery without examining the second representative.

The defendant brought a motion that was ultimately deemed abandoned after the plaintiff agreed to limit his claims to policy limits.

A dispute also arose regarding who could cross-examine the defendant, leading to thrown away costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $6,262.26 in costs thrown away, representing approximately half of the fees sought plus disbursements, noting that the motion was not certain to succeed and the plaintiff was put to unnecessary expense.

The plaintiff brought a motion to remove the defendant's counsel of record, alleging a conflict of interest because she had previously consulted with another lawyer at the same firm regarding her maternity leave dispute.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the lawyer consulted had no recollection of the discussion, no file was opened, and the firm had implemented sufficient safeguards and undertakings to ensure no confidential information would be shared with the defendant's counsel.

The court also ordered the plaintiff's motion materials sealed to provide added comfort.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the self-represented plaintiff to fulfill undertakings given at her examination for discovery almost two years prior.

The plaintiff, who was scheduled for major surgery, had not filed responding materials.

The Master ordered the plaintiff to fulfill the undertakings but granted an extended deadline to accommodate her medical situation, and provided guidance on how to fulfill the undertakings.

The moving defendants sought leave to amend their statement of defence on the eve of trial, three and a half years after the action was commenced, to plead that the plaintiff's claims arose from the use and operation of an automobile and were subject to the Insurance Act.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the amendment would cause non-compensable prejudice as the case had been prosecuted on the basis that it was not a motor vehicle accident case.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the presumption of prejudice from the delay had not been rebutted and that the plaintiffs would suffer actual prejudice if the amendment were permitted.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including impaired driving causing death and dangerous driving causing death, following a single-vehicle collision that resulted in the death of one passenger and injuries to another.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the driver.

The court analyzed extensive civilian and expert evidence, including accident reconstruction, occupant kinematics, and medical records.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the collision and entered findings of guilt on all counts.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

The underlying action arose from a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The court applied the Reid factors, finding that while the plaintiff's counsel failed to move promptly to set aside the dismissal order, the plaintiff had adequately explained the initial delay and the defendant suffered no significant prejudice.

The court concluded that the balance of justice favored the plaintiff and ordered the action restored.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order for spousal support following his retirement from the Ontario Provincial Police.

The court found that the applicant's retirement constituted a material change in circumstances that was not foreseen in the original order.

Applying the rule against double dipping, the court limited the applicant's income for support purposes to the non-equalized portion of his pension.

The court also imputed income to the respondent based on her ability to generate income from equalized assets.

Spousal support was reduced to $1,050 per month and a fixed termination date was set for October 31, 2021.

The applicant sought sole custody, child support, and equalization of net family property following the parties' separation.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, finding the respondent had abrogated his parental responsibilities and exhibited a cavalier attitude toward court orders.

The court imputed an annual income of $54,000 to the respondent for child support purposes due to his intentional under-employment and failure to disclose financial information.

Furthermore, the court found that the respondent's transfer of the matrimonial home to his father the day before the marriage was a sham, declaring the respondent the legal owner and ordering an equalization payment of $60,532.54 to the applicant, secured by a charge on the property.

Following a nine-day trial where the defendants to the counterclaim successfully defended against allegations of exacerbating flooding on the plaintiffs to the counterclaim's property, the successful parties sought costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs to the counterclaim had unreasonably protracted the litigation and failed to accept a formal offer to settle.

Applying Rule 49, the court awarded the successful parties their costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter, totaling $269,025.59.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the trial after discovering their counsel had been suspended by the Law Society.

The defendants sought costs thrown away for trial preparation.

The court declined to award costs at this stage, finding that the plaintiffs were blameless for the delay and that the trial judge would be in a better position to determine the issue of costs based on all circumstances, including whether the trial could have proceeded earlier to mitigate costs.