Andrea LeDrew

The defendants sought leave to file a jury notice almost four years after pleadings closed in a motor vehicle accident action.

The court applied the two-part test from Proper v. Nikore, examining both the circumstances of the delay and prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendants failed to establish that the omission of the jury notice was inadvertent, rejecting the argument that industry practice in motor vehicle cases should be judicially noticed.

The court also found that the plaintiff would suffer prejudice if leave were granted, as litigation strategy had been shaped by the assumption of a judge-alone trial, and the mediation settlement positions had been informed by that assumption.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Vida Mansori, brought a claim under the Occupiers' Liability Act after slipping and falling in a public washroom at a condominium building managed by the defendants.

The plaintiff suffered significant injuries.

The court considered expert evidence on the slip resistance of the washroom tiles and the defendants' maintenance schedule.

The court found that the washroom floor was not inherently unsafe and that the defendants had taken reasonable steps to ensure safety, including regular cleaning and security checks.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence on the part of the defendants, dismissing the action.

Damages were provisionally assessed at $100,000 had liability been found.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

This endorsement addresses costs following an appeal decision.

The appellant, Nathalie Xian Yi Yan, was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to two sets of respondents and substantial indemnity costs to a third respondent, Edward Lawrence Marrocco.

The substantial indemnity costs were awarded due to the appellant's frivolous, vexatious, and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct, dishonesty, illegality, and conspiracy against Mr. Marrocco.

The appellant, a traditional Chinese medicine practitioner, launched 19 civil claims against individuals involved in disciplinary proceedings against her, including investigators, College counsel, and independent legal counsel to the Discipline Committee.

These claims alleged defamation, professional negligence, evidence tampering, and breach of due process.

The motion judge struck these claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being barred by statutory immunity under the Regulated Health Professions Act, and constituting an impermissible collateral attack on the tribunal's decision.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, affirming the application of statutory immunity, absolute privilege for statements in judicial/tribunal proceedings, and the rule against collateral attacks, and denied leave to amend the claims or appeal the costs awards.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a $10 million settlement in a certified class action against a ballet school and a former instructor/photographer for alleged sexual assault and privacy breaches.

The plaintiffs also sought approval of Class Counsel's fees and honoraria for the representative plaintiffs and certain class members.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved Class Counsel's fee request of $2.25 million.

However, the court declined to approve the requested honoraria, holding on principle that the practice of awarding a stipend to representative plaintiffs for prosecuting a civil claim is contrary to the administration of justice and should be stopped.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer a personal injury action from Barrie to Toronto.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it was brought late and for tactical reasons.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the defendants failed to raise the issue until after the pretrial conference and that transferring the action to Toronto would result in significant delay in securing a trial date.

This is a final costs endorsement following a motion by the plaintiff, Waugh, to enforce an undertaking.

The court reviewed submissions regarding the requirement for leave to bring the motion, noting that a prior judge had scheduled the motion despite a leave requirement and that counsel for Bentworth had not objected on this basis until later.

The court found it unfair to impose substantial indemnity costs on Waugh and ordered Waugh to pay partial indemnity costs of $14,000 plus HST to Bentworth Outdoor Storage Inc. and Hy Hershberg.

No costs were awarded to Pinckard as she did not appear.

The plaintiff was unsuccessful on a motion.

The court determined that the plaintiff should pay at least partial indemnity costs of $14,000 plus HST.

However, a previous order required the plaintiff to obtain leave before bringing any further motions.

The court deferred finalizing the costs order, requesting clear evidence from counsel as to whether the plaintiff had advised the court of the leave requirement and obtained leave, noting that if leave was not obtained, substantial indemnity costs of $21,000 plus HST would be ordered.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a declaration that the defendants breached an undertaking given to the court regarding the removal of his stored goods, and sought damages of $180,963.

The court found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, including whether the undertaking bound the corporate defendant, the scope of the undertaking, and whether it was breached.

The court held that granting the requested relief summarily would be inappropriate, risk inconsistent findings, and fail to advance the litigation as a whole.

The motion was dismissed.