Andrew B. Lister

The court dismissed a motion to certify a class action brought by Rodney Wilson against the Ontario Provincial Police for alleged privacy breaches arising from video recording detainees using the toilet in OPP cells.

The court found that the proposed common issues, including alleged Charter breaches and damages, required individualized adjudication and were not suitable for certification.

The court also addressed the evolution of OPP privacy policies and the balance between detainee privacy and institutional security.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The applicants, Reginald and Linda Cyr, sought costs after successfully resolving an application to interpret a previous judgment regarding their interment rights in the respondent's cemetery.

The previous judgment had contradictory paragraphs regarding the dimensions of the "Cyr Family Garden." The court had previously suggested a compromise, which the parties did not initially take.

Although the parties eventually reached a comprehensive agreement on the main issues, they could not agree on costs.

The applicants sought partial indemnity costs of $38,596.40.

The respondent argued the applicants should have accepted an earlier proposal and that the amount claimed was disproportionate.

The court found the applicants were entirely successful on the application, which was necessary due to the respondent's unilateral actions and the ambiguity of the prior judgment.

The court awarded the applicants fixed costs of $10,000, all inclusive.

The defendants, excluding Justin Noseworthy, brought a motion to set aside a prior order from January 31, 2023, which had dismissed their motion to adjourn trial and ordered costs against them.

They argued that the plaintiff had misled the court by later increasing the number of witnesses, leading to the trial's adjournment.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the additional witnesses would not have changed the original decision to refuse the adjournment.

The court emphasized that reopening a motion is reserved for exceptional circumstances and that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute misleading the court.

The court also maintained the prior order prohibiting further motions without leave due to the parties' history of unnecessary motions.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a substantial indemnity basis due to the defendants' unfounded allegations of misleading the court.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action due to the plaintiff's failure to pay ordered security for costs ($45,000) and costs ($8,400).

Despite being given extensions and opportunities, the plaintiff provided no evidence of payment or a plan to pay.

The court, balancing the importance of procedural compliance with access to justice, found no compelling reason to grant further indulgence and dismissed the action under Rule 56.06.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the defendants.

The defendants, successful on a prior motion for security of costs, sought substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued for costs to be reserved or deferred, or capped at a lower amount.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct, including failure to provide financial disclosure and file a motion record, was unreasonable, contributing to the complexity and costs incurred by the defendants.

Consequently, the court awarded elevated costs of $8,400 to the defendants, payable within 30 days, rejecting the plaintiff's arguments for deferral or a lower quantum.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim.

The plaintiff opposed this motion and sought to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim for inconvenience damages.

The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the wrongful dismissal claim, including whether the plaintiff was dismissed and the reasonableness of mitigation efforts, which required a trial.

Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

Conversely, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the defendants' counterclaim for inconvenience damages, as no evidence supported it, and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, dismissing the counterclaim.

Following a trial where the plaintiff cemetery company's action for breach of fiduciary duty was dismissed as statute-barred and the defendants' action for declaratory relief was conceded, the parties sought costs.

The court found that both sides bore responsibility for the protracted and expensive litigation, which was driven more by a need for vindication than the specific relief sought.

The court concluded that the outcome was essentially a draw and ordered each party to bear its own costs.

The court also declined to order costs against non-party directors and officers of the cemetery company, finding no jurisdiction to do so.

The plaintiff cemetery corporation brought an action against two former trustees, alleging they breached their fiduciary duties by obtaining personal benefits, including discounted grave plots, a family garden, and unbilled landscaping services.

The defendants counterclaimed for declarations validating their acquisitions and for damages.

The court found that while the defendants had breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose the irregular transactions to the board, the plaintiff's claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the board knew or ought to have known of the claims more than two years before commencing the action.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed, the defendants' request for declaratory relief was granted on consent, and the defendants' claims for punitive and aggravated damages were dismissed.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successfully opposed motion for a stay of hearing.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

The court considered factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including success, complexity, and proportionality.

Given the non-complex nature of the issues and the hearing in writing, the court awarded the respondent $3,500.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant moved to amend the timetable and compel the respondent to provide a further and better affidavit of documents.

The respondent sought to dismiss the motion, arguing compliance and proportionality.

The court found the respondent's affidavit of documents did not comply with Rule 30.03 and Form 30A, particularly regarding particulars for Schedule A and detailed grounds for privilege in Schedule B. The applicant was also directed to review her Schedule B. The court ordered the respondent to serve a compliant affidavit and amended the litigation timetable.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs, Reginald and Linda Cyr, sought leave to amend their statement of claim on the sixth day of a simplified rules trial to add claims for punitive and aggravated damages.

The defendant, The Cataraqui Cemetery Company, opposed the motion, arguing the amendments were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, as the underlying facts were known years prior.

The court granted leave, finding that the proposed amendments were elaborations on facts already pleaded and did not fundamentally alter the nature of the action or cause uncompensable prejudice to the defendant.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendants.

The defendants sought $45,380.73 in costs, while the plaintiff argued for $9,000.

The court fixed costs at an all-inclusive sum of $17,500, payable forthwith by the plaintiff to the defendants.

The decision considered factors under Rule 57.01(1), a Rule 49 offer, and the principle from Boucher v. Public Accountant Council for Ontario that costs should be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, rather than solely reflecting the successful litigant's actual incurred costs.

This was a motion for summary judgment by eight of the named defendants (six holding companies and two individual directors) in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendants sought to dismiss claims against them, arguing they were not 'common and related employers' and that the corporate veil should not be pierced for the individual directors.

The court applied principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin for summary judgment motions, and considered the common employer doctrine and personal liability of corporate officers.

The motion was granted, dismissing the claims against the individual directors due to no evidence of fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or want of authority, and against the holding companies as they did not exercise effective control over the plaintiff's employment.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking removal of the plaintiff’s solicitor for alleged conflict of interest, the court addressed costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $6,700, while the defendant argued the time spent was excessive.

The court held that costs should follow the event and that the unsuccessful party should ordinarily pay costs.

Although the motion lacked merit, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and instead fixed costs at a reduced amount.