Andrew A. Sanfilippo

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for leave to strike the defendant's jury notice in a motor vehicle action that was approaching its tenth year.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, civil jury trials in Toronto Region had been largely suspended, making the scheduled 20-day jury trial on February 22, 2021, impossible.

The court granted leave and struck the jury notice, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated sufficient prejudice from further delay, including wasted costs, loss of witness availability, and financial detriment under the Insurance Act.

The court emphasized that timely access to justice, especially for an old case, outweighed the defendant's right to a jury trial, which is not absolute, and that a "wait and see" approach was not appropriate given the uncertainty of future jury sittings.

This endorsement arises from a case conference in a complex action involving TD Bank and numerous insurance underwriters.

The court addressed the management of three pending discovery motions (defendants' refusals, plaintiff's refusals, and defendants' motion for a second discovery representative) and trial management issues.

The court declined the plaintiff's request to expand their refusals motion, permitted the plaintiff to withdraw their existing refusals motion without prejudice, and vacated the scheduled trial date of September 13, 2021, as the action was not ready.

The court provided specific case management directions for completing discoveries, updating motion materials, and preparing for a future trial date.

The defendants, Ministry of the Attorney General and Justice of the Peace Louise Logue, requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that Justice of the Peace Logue was immune from the claim and that no cause of action was pleaded against the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Consequently, the action was dismissed as frivolous and unsustainable at law.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision that confirmed his incapacity to consent to antipsychotic medication and a community treatment plan, and the validity of a community treatment order.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the legal standard for capacity and had ample evidence to determine the appellant's incapacity to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of treatment or lack thereof.

The court also found that the Board had a sufficient basis to confirm that all statutory criteria for issuing the community treatment order were met.

The court issued a protective order on consent of the parties in a case involving allegations of appropriation and misuse of confidential technical and business information.

The order governs the handling and protection of confidential documents and information exchanged during discovery, requiring advance notice before filing such materials in court, but explicitly stating it does not constitute a sealing order or publication ban.

The court also provided specific case management directions for the litigation.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a civil forfeiture application under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, against various properties seized from an individual and an interested party.

The Attorney General and the interested party, Halyna Borylo, agreed to a settlement.

The court, on motion, approved the settlement, which provided for the forfeiture of most seized assets to the Crown, while allowing the interested party to retain a specific motor vehicle and a portion of the seized funds.

The court emphasized that settlement approval in civil forfeiture cases requires an analysis of whether the proposed settlement satisfies the statutory requirements of the Civil Remedies Act, rather than merely accepting party consent.

The Plaintiff, a party under disability, sought court approval for a global settlement of her tort claims against the defendants and statutory accident benefits claims against her insurer.

The court reviewed detailed evidence, including affidavits from the plaintiff's lawyer and the Public Guardian and Trustee, and found the proposed settlement to be in the plaintiff's best interest, approving the monetary elements and the structured annuity payments.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a settlement for a minor's personal injury claim and a derivative Family Law Act claim.

The court initially declined approval due to concerns regarding the allocation of settlement funds between the minor and the litigation guardian, and the reasonableness of legal fees.

Following the submission of supplementary affidavits and a re-allocation of the settlement, the court approved the settlement, finding it to be in the minor plaintiff's best interest.

The order included specific directions for the payment of funds into court and the finalization of the draft order.

The Plaintiff sought to amend an existing litigation timetable due to COVID-19 disruptions.

The Defendant opposed remote examinations for discovery, argued for incomplete documentary production, and sought to bring a motion for security for costs.

The court ordered the delivery of sworn affidavits of documents, mandated remote examinations for discovery and mediation if requested, and directed that any motion for security for costs be brought after discoveries.

The applicants, Dawn and Scott McIntosh, sought to schedule a motion in Toronto to stay an action (the "2020 Oshawa Action") brought by HomeLife Superior Realty Inc. in Oshawa.

McIntosh argued the Oshawa action should have been a counterclaim in the existing Toronto action and sought to dismiss it as frivolous or an abuse of process.

The court declined to schedule the motion in Toronto, emphasizing Rule 37.03(1) which presumptively requires motions to be heard in the region where the affected proceeding was commenced.

The court found no reason to deviate from this rule, noting the Oshawa action was not improperly brought, there was a history of litigation in Oshawa related to the real estate transaction, and McIntosh was already involved in other Oshawa proceedings.

The Plaintiff sought to proceed with an unopposed summary judgment motion due to the Defendant's alleged failure to deliver a responding record by a court-ordered deadline.

The Defendant claimed non-receipt of the motion record and believed the motion was adjourned due to COVID-19 court notices.

The court found a miscommunication regarding document delivery but noted that the parties should have continued preparing the motion.

Balancing fairness to both parties, the court varied the existing timetable to allow the Defendant an opportunity to respond, prioritizing adjudication on the merits.

The Plaintiff's request for costs thrown away due to the delay was denied, acknowledging the Defendant's pandemic-related complications.

However, the Defendant was ordered to pay outstanding costs from a previous Master's Order.

The plaintiff sought default judgment against the defendants for alleged defaults on three lease agreements.

The motion was brought without notice and lacked proper evidentiary support, including unattached exhibits and outdated affidavit evidence regarding mitigation.

The court adjourned the motion, requiring the plaintiff to serve the defendants with updated materials, including a factum addressing damages, mitigation credits, and interest, and set a schedule for the defendants to respond.

The defendant sought to schedule a summary judgment motion in two related actions concerning failed pre-construction home purchases.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing it would not be the most expeditious or efficient process.

The court, exercising its gatekeeping function under Rule 50.13(6), declined to schedule the summary judgment motion, finding that a one-day trial would be more efficient given the limited time savings and the potential for overlapping factual determinations with other pleaded issues (misrepresentation, undue influence, exemplary damages).

The court emphasized that partial summary judgment is only appropriate for discrete, severable issues.

A timetable for documentary production, discoveries, and mandatory mediation was ordered.

The 12th Case Management Conference addressed the timetable for expert reports and pleading amendments in a complex Indigenous litigation.

The Plaintiff sought a simultaneous exchange of expert reports, arguing for procedural reciprocity and efficiency.

The Defendants advocated for a sequential timetable, asserting it would allow them to better understand and respond to the Plaintiff's case, aligning with common practice in similar complex litigation.

The court adopted the Defendants' sequential timetable for expert reports, finding no basis to deviate from established practice in complex land claims.

The court also granted leave for the Plaintiff to amend its Statement of Claim, with the formal filing deferred due to COVID-19 court closures.

The plaintiff landlord sought a Mareva injunction ex parte against the defendant indemnifier and her co-owning spouse to restrain the disposition of a residential property, alleging default on a commercial lease and a risk of asset dissipation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no "extraordinary urgency" to proceed ex parte, insufficient admissible evidence to establish a "serious risk of removal or dissipation of property," and that the balance of convenience favored dismissal, partly because the injunction would indirectly affect a party against whom no strong prima facie case was made and would function as an improper Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The plaintiff initiated an action against the defendant for a loan guarantee.

The defendant sought to stay the action on the basis of *forum non conveniens*, arguing a Florida proceeding was more appropriate.

Due to COVID-19 disruptions, a case conference was held to establish a timetable for the defendant's motion.

The parties disagreed on the hearing format and the defendant's obligation to file a Statement of Defence.

The court ordered the defendant to deliver a Statement of Defence and Motion Record by June 19, 2020, and set a detailed schedule for the motion, deferring the decision on whether the hearing would be oral or written.

This is the first case management endorsement for an action accepted into the Civil Case Management Pilot Project.

The court outlined the purpose of case management, emphasizing efficiency and proportionality.

The parties had agreed on a Discovery Plan.

A joint request for a "Confidentiality Order," which constituted a sealing order, was declined without substantive determination because it required a formal motion satisfying the Supreme Court's test for restricting access to the court.

The endorsement provided specific directions for documentary production, examinations for discovery, and the scheduling of future motions, including for a sealing order or security for costs.

It also set the date for the next case management conference and general directions for cooperation and efficiency.

The 11th Case Management Conference addressed the trial process and timetable for a complex action involving historic evidence.

The parties agreed to a bifurcated trial but disagreed on the degree of bifurcation.

The plaintiff proposed a four-phase structure (two liability, two remedies/crossclaims), while the defendants proposed a two-phase structure (all liability in Phase 1, all remedies/crossclaims in Phase 2).

The court adopted the two-phase structure, finding it more efficient and less prone to inconsistencies, while reserving the right for parties to seek further refinement at the pre-trial stage.

A detailed timetable for pleadings, discovery, and documentary production was also established to keep the action on track for a 2022 trial.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a previous decision where the court refused to confirm a Provisional Variation Order.

The respondent, who successfully opposed the variation, sought costs.

The applicant failed to submit any arguments regarding costs despite being given an opportunity.

The court determined costs based on the respondent's submissions, awarding them on a partial indemnity basis, finding that full indemnity was not warranted.

The total costs awarded to the respondent were $16,964.21, inclusive of legal fees and disbursements.

The Applicant sought costs for an application to enforce a Condominium Authority Tribunal order requiring the Respondent condominium corporation to produce records.

Although the Respondent eventually complied with the record production, it did so four months late.

The court found the Applicant was entitled to costs, rejecting the Respondent's arguments based on late compliance and an invalid offer to settle.

Costs were awarded on a full indemnity basis for the period of non-compliance (up to August 1, 2019) and on a partial indemnity basis thereafter, totaling $14,716.91.