Civil Litigation - Defendant

The moving defendants sought summary judgment dismissing claims and cross‑claims arising from a motor vehicle collision where a driver turning left collided with an oncoming vehicle and pedestrians were injured.

The court considered whether there was a genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The responding defendant argued the oncoming driver may have contributed to the accident by slowing or failing to keep a proper lookout.

The moving defendants relied largely on unsworn statements and an affidavit from counsel rather than firsthand evidence.

The court held the evidentiary record was insufficient and that a trier of fact could potentially find contributory negligence by the oncoming driver.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of funds transferred to the defendants for investment in the American stock market.

The defendants admitted receiving the funds but claimed the losses resulted from stock market risks.

The court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding negligence and breach of the implied contractual duty to invest the funds prudently.

The defendant who undertook the investments admitted lacking competence and taking unreasonable risks, leading the court to conclude that the plaintiff’s losses resulted from negligent investment conduct.

The co‑defendant was held jointly liable as a joint holder of the investment account that received and commingled the plaintiff’s funds.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision arising from a dispute with a telecommunications provider over billing following the cancellation of bundled services.

The deputy judge had found the provider’s billing communications confusing and its collection letters aggressive, but concluded the plaintiff failed to prove financial loss caused by the billing practices.

Nominal damages of $200 were awarded for mailing costs and the time spent addressing the collection efforts, together with modest costs.

On appeal, the court confirmed that jurisdiction existed because the amount claimed in the action exceeded the statutory threshold under s. 31 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found no reversible error in the deputy judge’s findings or the costs disposition and dismissed both the appeal and the cross‑appeal.

Following a partial summary judgment decision granting rescission under s. 6 of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, the court addressed costs of the motion.

Although the moving party achieved partial success, the court declined to award costs immediately.

The court noted uncertainty regarding the quantum of damages to be determined on a reference and the potential impact of competing Rule 49 settlement offers.

Given ongoing issues including quantification of damages, unresolved liability of another defendant, a counterclaim, and a third‑party claim, the court held it would be inappropriate to determine costs at this stage.

The issue of liability, scale, and quantum of costs for the motion was therefore reserved to the trial judge ultimately disposing of the matter.

The moving parties sought judgment enforcing a settlement agreement under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and declaratory relief under s. 97 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The dispute concerned the interpretation of settlement terms requiring an accounting of profits, dividends, management fees, and payments derived from a medical centre business, and whether certain legal expenses and management fees constituted benefits received or derived by the responding parties.

The court preferred the evidence of the moving parties’ expert accountant, finding that payments for legal fees and management services constituted benefits derived by the responding parties rather than excluded loan repayments.

The accounting determined that additional funds were owed under the settlement and that the responding parties were required to transfer shares in the corporation.

Judgment was granted enforcing the settlement terms and ordering payment of the additional sums and transfer of shares.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking production of the Crown brief and police investigation file from a criminal prosecution arising from a motor vehicle accident that caused the death of the plaintiff’s father.

Liability for the accident had been admitted, but damages remained in dispute.

The plaintiff argued the materials were relevant to aggravating circumstances affecting psychological injury damages, including allegations the defendant was texting while driving.

Applying the third‑party production test and factors articulated by the Court of Appeal, the court held the requested materials were reasonably likely to contain information probative of damages and that it would be unfair to require the plaintiff to proceed without access to them.

Given the Crown’s consent and the potential evidentiary relevance, production was ordered.

Following the dismissal of a motion seeking consolidation of an action and an application concerning ownership of a cottage, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to the successful defendants.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized that costs must be fair and reasonable rather than reflective of actual legal expenses.

The court assessed the roles played by counsel, the relative simplicity of the motion, and the absence of extensive responding materials.

Several defendants were awarded reduced partial indemnity costs reflecting their limited participation, while the defendant who prepared the principal responding materials received a higher award.

The unsuccessful moving party was ordered to pay the fixed costs to each successful defendant within ninety days.

The plaintiff and defendants by counterclaim brought a motion to strike portions of an Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim on the basis that certain allegations were irrelevant, frivolous, or disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court struck paragraphs relating to a separate incident and repetitive descriptions of the parties’ physical attributes.

Allegations concerning the prior relationship between the parties and statements about the plaintiff’s employment with his lawyer were permitted to remain because they responded to issues raised in the statement of claim.

The court held that lawyers acting for a party do not owe a duty of care to opposing parties, and therefore claims against the plaintiff’s counsel and her law firm in their professional capacity could not stand.

The counterclaim was struck out with leave to amend.

The applicants moved to remove Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP as counsel for a corporation involved in a shareholder dispute.

The court considered whether a unanimous shareholders’ agreement required unanimous director approval for the law firm’s retainer and whether conflicts of interest existed under the Business Corporations Act and common law principles.

The court held that the applicant director was conflicted regarding the company’s defence of litigation he initiated and therefore unanimity was not required for that retainer.

However, the court found the law firm’s concurrent involvement in both litigation against the director and negotiations with a third party supplier created a practical and legal conflict affecting corporate advice.

The retainer relating to the negotiations was therefore improper.

The successful moving party on a prior motion for production of documents sought approximately $22,000 in costs.

The responding party argued that each side should bear its own costs because the motion raised a novel point of law and challenged the reasonableness of the moving party’s time and cross‑examination costs.

The court rejected the argument that the motion involved a novel legal issue and found the responding party’s resistance to production unreasonable.

However, the court held that the parties should bear their own costs for cross‑examinations on affidavits.

Costs were awarded to the successful moving party on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $12,500, all inclusive.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to amend their amended statement of claim to add a new defendant and to compel further production of documents from several defendants.

The court granted leave to amend and ordered the corporate defendants to produce bank statements, cancelled cheques, and related financial records relevant to the impugned real estate transactions.

However, the plaintiffs’ request for production of documents contained in the real estate lawyer’s files was refused on the basis of solicitor-client privilege.

The court held that privilege belongs to the clients and is not waived merely because another party places its state of mind in issue.

The fraud exception to privilege was not engaged because a prima facie case of fraud had not yet been established.

Following a trial judgment awarding over $16 million to the plaintiff in a commercial dispute, the court determined the appropriate costs award and prejudgment interest.

The court held that although the plaintiff’s Rule 49 offer was served slightly outside the formal timing requirements, it could still be considered under Rules 57.01 and 49.13.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded from the date of the settlement offer and for work responding to a serious trading‑manipulation allegation later abandoned by the defendant.

However, the court found the plaintiff’s claimed hours excessive and reduced the requested fees.

The court fixed total fees at $1,400,000 inclusive of taxes, allowed disbursements of $191,813, and awarded prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date the cause of action arose.

The plaintiff sought reconsideration of a costs order arising from a successful motion by the defendant to strike numerous paragraphs of a class action statement of claim.

After the Court of Appeal partially allowed the plaintiff’s appeal and directed reconsideration of costs, the motion judge fixed costs at $75,000 in the cause.

Following a further reopening of the reconsideration due to overlooked submissions, the plaintiff argued that he had been the successful party and that the court had improperly counted paragraphs to assess divided success.

The court rejected this argument, holding that both parties achieved substantial success on the interlocutory motion and that costs in the cause remained appropriate.

The defendant’s request for an offsetting award related to appeal costs was also denied.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion for judgment after noting the defendant in default for failing to file a statement of defence in time.

The statement of claim sought $15,000 in general damages, loss of income, or loss of competitive advantage.

The court held that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the damages claimed.

The motion for judgment was denied, but the plaintiff was granted leave to obtain a date for an assessment of damages.

The moving parties sought summary judgment dismissing a negligence, intentional tort, and Charter damages claim arising from the plaintiff’s involuntary detention for psychiatric assessment under the Mental Health Act.

The plaintiff alleged improper issuance and confirmation of a Form 1 and improper medical treatment during a brief detention at hospital.

The court held that medical malpractice claims require expert evidence establishing the applicable standard of care, breach, and causation.

The plaintiff filed no expert evidence and relied solely on allegations in the statement of claim, while the defendants filed expert reports confirming that the physicians’ conduct met the standard of care.

As no genuine issue requiring a trial was raised, summary judgment was granted dismissing the claims against the physicians and the hospital.

Following dismissal of a counterclaim after a five‑day trial, the successful defendants by counterclaim sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The self‑represented counterclaimant made no submissions on costs despite being given multiple opportunities.

Applying the principle that costs should generally follow the event and must be fair and reasonable, the court found no reason to depart from the “loser pays” rule, particularly where the counterclaim lacked merit and caused unnecessary delay.

The court accepted the reasonableness of the hours claimed by counsel given the length of the trial and circumstances, including wasted court time caused by adjournments sought by the counterclaimant.

Costs were awarded to both successful parties on a partial indemnity basis.

Following a motion concerning the defendants’ failure to comply with disclosure and non‑dissipation orders, the plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Although the plaintiffs did not obtain dismissal of the defence, they succeeded in obtaining strict disclosure terms and relief advancing the litigation.

The court found that the defendants deliberately failed to comply with prior disclosure orders and advanced false allegations that the plaintiffs had stolen business records.

The defendants’ claims of impecuniosity were rejected as unsupported by the evidence.

Substantial indemnity costs were warranted as a sanction for the defendants’ conduct and to denounce false allegations and non‑compliance with court orders.

The defendants moved for leave under Rule 25.01(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to deliver a rejoinder responding to the plaintiffs’ Reply.

The court considered the restrictive test governing when pleadings may continue beyond a reply, emphasizing that leave should only be granted where the reply introduces new and important matters that could not reasonably have been anticipated in the statement of defence.

The motion arose in complex litigation concerning family disputes over corporate, trust, and estate arrangements involving a real estate business and charitable structures.

The court concluded that several allegations raised in the reply—including claims regarding mistaken transfers of investment assets, fiduciary breaches, property management arrangements, and trust income expectations—introduced new factual bases and potential grounds of liability.

Leave was granted to deliver the proposed rejoinder in full.