A.P. Ramsay

The litigation guardian for a minor plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 7 to approve a settlement of $118,103 for a dog bite claim.

The court found the settlement amount for the minor's damages to be fair and reasonable.

However, the court declined to approve the requested legal fees of $39,121.61, finding them unreasonable for a straightforward strict liability case that settled shortly after pleadings, and instead approved fees of $13,950 plus HST.

The court also suspended approval of disbursements and the OHIP subrogated claim pending further evidence.

The minor plaintiff was struck by a vehicle while crossing the road after collecting mail.

A settlement of $400,000 was reached at mediation.

The litigation guardian brought a motion for court approval of the settlement, legal fees under a contingency fee agreement, and a referral fee.

The court approved the settlement amount for the minor plaintiff but found the contingency fee agreement and referral fee agreement unenforceable due to non-compliance with statutory and Law Society requirements.

Legal fees were reduced and approved on a quantum meruit basis.

The applicant restaurant chain sought a declaration of coverage under its commercial 'all risks' insurance policy for business interruption losses caused by government-mandated closures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant argued that coverage was triggered under the policy's civil authority and ingress/egress extensions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the policy required 'direct physical loss or damage' to trigger coverage.

The court held that the COVID-19 virus and the resulting government orders did not cause direct physical loss or damage to the insured's property, and therefore the losses did not fall within the policy's coverage.

Following the settlement of a motor vehicle accident tort claim for $85,000, the plaintiff brought a motion to determine costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs for the tort action, as well as recovery of substantial legal fees incurred in pursuing statutory accident benefits (SABs) and Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits.

The court awarded the plaintiff $84,075 in fees and $58,983.63 in disbursements for the tort action, rejecting the statutory third party insurer's argument that its exposure was limited to the $200,000 statutory minimum.

However, the court declined to award costs for the pursuit of SABs, finding the plaintiff failed to address the factors set out in Cadieux v. Cloutier, and denied costs for pursuing CPP benefits as they were not incidental to the proceeding.

The plaintiff's lawyer of record passed away, and his firm brought a motion to be removed from the record and for a charging order.

The motion was adjourned because adverse parties raised concerns about the plaintiff's capacity.

The court reviewed the legal framework for appointing a litigation guardian and ordering a capacity assessment under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Courts of Justice Act.

The court directed the parties to consult and establish a framework to address the plaintiff's capacity before proceeding with the motion.

The applicant, owner of a penthouse unit that is twice the size of other units in the building, sought an oppression remedy under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicant objected to an amendment to the condominium declaration that changed the cost-sharing of common expenses from an equal share per unit to a share based on unit size.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the board's decision to amend the declaration to ensure equitable contribution to common expenses and adequately fund the reserve fund was reasonable and not oppressive.

The applicant's claim for damages was also dismissed.

The plaintiff, a co-founder of 1PLUS12, brought an action against numerous defendants, including the corporation's lawyers and investors, alleging a Ponzi scheme and claiming unpaid compensation.

Several groups of defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court struck the plaintiff's affidavit and the claims against the investors, finding the plaintiff lacked standing to advance claims on their behalf.

The court also struck certain scandalous and irrelevant paragraphs from the pleadings.

However, the court dismissed the motions to strike the entirety of the claims against the defendant lawyers and law firms, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims for negligence and misrepresentation would fail.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff was hired under a fixed-term contract that classified him as an independent contractor.

The court found that the plaintiff was misclassified and was in fact an employee or dependent contractor.

The court also held that the termination clause in the contract was unenforceable because its 'for cause' provision violated the Employment Standards Act.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the balance of the fixed-term contract, unpaid wages, vacation pay, and holiday pay, but claims for punitive and moral damages were dismissed.

Following a successful trial in a slip and fall action, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle and the defendant's conduct.

The court found the offer to settle was served six days before trial, missing the mandatory seven-day requirement under Rule 49.10, and thus did not trigger substantial indemnity costs.

The court also found the self-represented corporate defendant's conduct was not abusive or reprehensible.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $170,000 in fees plus disbursements and HST, along with prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff moved for judgment to enforce Minutes of Settlement purportedly executed following a pre-trial conference regarding a dispute over beneficial ownership of two condominium properties.

The defendants opposed, arguing they did not agree to transfer the property as a trustee to a beneficial owner and felt pressured to sign.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the evidentiary record deficient and conflicting, with three different versions of the Minutes of Settlement presented and no direct evidence from the plaintiff confirming his signature.

A trial was directed to determine whether a binding settlement agreement was actually reached.

The respondent moved to quash an appeal of an arbitral costs award on the basis that the appellants failed to seek leave to appeal under s. 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellants argued that the Arbitration Act and their arbitration agreement provided broad appeal rights without the need for leave.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the appeal was not manifestly devoid of merit and that the requirement for leave in commercial arbitrations with broad appeal agreements remains an open question to be determined by the judge hearing the appeal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a $110,000 settlement for a minor plaintiff who fractured his tibia after slipping on ice in the defendants' parking garage.

The court found the settlement amount, which accounted for 20% contributory negligence, to be fair and reasonable.

However, the court refused to approve the 30% contingency fee agreement, finding it was not properly executed or explained to the litigation guardian.

The court voided the agreement and assessed the legal fees at 20% of the damages.

The applicant, a minor, sought court approval under Rule 7.08 for a $22,500 full and final settlement of her statutory accident benefits claim with the respondent insurer.

The minor sustained physical and severe psychological injuries after being struck by a vehicle as a pedestrian.

The court adjourned the application, finding the evidentiary record insufficient to determine whether the settlement was fair and reasonable, particularly regarding whether the minor's psychological injuries might meet the threshold for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The plaintiff hotel owner sued the defendant condominium corporation for historical overpayments of shared electricity costs spanning 2006 to 2015.

The overpayments resulted from a conversion error in an Excel spreadsheet used to calculate the plaintiff's share.

The court found the defendant was unjustly enriched and ordered repayment of $730,058.99.

The court rejected the defendant's limitation period defence, finding the error was not reasonably discoverable until a consultant identified it in 2017.

The court also dismissed the defendant's claim for equitable set-off regarding alleged underpayments in other areas.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's product liability action for failing to participate at trial, the successful defendant sought costs of $139,739.85 plus disbursements on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding that the defendant's offers to settle did not trigger Rule 49 consequences and the plaintiff's conduct did not warrant an elevated scale.

Noting that the defendant was represented by in-house counsel who did not docket time, and that the amount claimed was excessive with duplication of effort, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale at $36,000 plus HST and $7,752.05 in disbursements.

During a civil jury trial for a slip and fall claim, the plaintiff moved to discharge the jury following the defendants' closing address.

The plaintiff argued that defence counsel's closing submissions contained numerous transgressions, including misstating evidence, expressing personal opinions, referring to unproven hearsay, and breaching the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The trial judge agreed, finding that the cumulative effect of the improper statements and trial conduct created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice that could not be cured by correcting instructions.

The motion was granted, the jury was discharged, and the trial was concluded by judge alone.