Civil Litigation - Defendant

The plaintiff brought a motion for contempt against two defendants, Peter Corbiere and Deborah Paine, for failing to comply with an order compelling examination in aid of execution and production of financial documents.

The court found both defendants in contempt.

This decision focuses on the sentencing of Peter Corbiere, as Deborah Paine's matter was adjourned due to partial compliance.

The court imposed a 60-day conditional sentence on Corbiere, including house arrest and compliance conditions, and ordered him to pay substantial indemnity costs of $14,529.53.

La requérante mère a demandé une modification de la structure parentale pour obtenir la garde exclusive en raison du manque de coopération de l'intimé père et de son non-respect d'une ordonnance antérieure.

L'intimé père s'est opposé à cette demande et a sollicité une garde partagée ainsi qu'une réduction de la pension alimentaire.

Le tribunal a constaté une relation parentale conflictuelle et problématique, rendant potentiellement la garde conjointe inopérante.

Une évaluation par le Bureau de l'avocat des enfants a été ordonnée pour obtenir des preuves objectives.

En attendant, le tribunal a rendu des ordonnances définitives concernant l'assurance vie du père, le maintien de la pension alimentaire à 1 000 $ par mois, et l'octroi de 768 $ d'arriérés pour dépenses spéciales et extraordinaires à la mère.

Des ordonnances provisoires ont également été émises pour l'accès estival, les méthodes de communication et les modalités d'échange des enfants.

The claimant sought a ruling that costs incurred in Superior Court proceedings, which were ultimately found to be without jurisdiction for assessment by a judge, should be included as part of the expropriation costs to be assessed by an assessment officer.

The respondent argued that these costs should not be awarded as the court lacked jurisdiction and the respondent was not at fault.

The court declined to make a determination on the Superior Court costs, instead referring the question of entitlement and quantum to the assessment officer conducting the expropriation costs assessment, noting that both parties shared the misapprehension of the court's jurisdiction.

Foreign defendants moved to set aside service ex juris of a statement of claim and to stay or dismiss an Ontario action alleging fraudulent conveyance of wind turbine business assets.

The plaintiff had previously obtained judgment in Ontario for breach of a letter of intent to market turbines in Canada, and alleged the defendants transferred assets to avoid satisfying that judgment.

The court held that a presumptive connecting factor existed because a contract made and breached in Ontario was connected to the dispute regarding the asset transfer.

The defendants failed to rebut the presumption of jurisdiction and did not demonstrate that another forum, such as California, was clearly more appropriate under forum non conveniens principles.

Service ex juris and substituted service were upheld and the action was permitted to proceed in Ontario.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to strike portions of the statement of claim, including claims against an individual corporate officer and a claim for oppression under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The action alleged that a former corporate partner withdrew from a partnership while its share capital account reflected a negative balance arising from partnership drawings, resulting in claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and oppression.

The court applied the stringent “plain and obvious” test for striking pleadings and held that the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment disclosed reasonable causes of action and should proceed.

However, the oppression remedy claim lacked sufficient material facts and was struck with leave to amend.

Certain paragraphs referencing settlement discussions were also struck as subject to settlement privilege.

In the administration of a settled national class action concerning compensation claims, class counsel sought approval of a protocol allowing class members to submit late compensation claims despite the expiry of the original deadline under the settlement agreement.

The court had previously provisionally approved the protocol subject to approvals by courts in other jurisdictions.

The remaining issue concerned costs related to the protocol approval motion.

Only the moving party made submissions and requested that there be no order as to costs.

The court accepted the unopposed submission and ordered that there be no order as to costs.

Appeal from a master's ruling on a refusals motion arising during examinations conducted under rule 39.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in connection with a motion for particulars.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants waived solicitor‑client privilege over their entire litigation file by filing an affidavit from counsel stating that the defendants lacked knowledge necessary to plead.

The court held that filing a solicitor’s affidavit results only in a limited waiver of privilege confined to matters directly placed in issue by the affidavit.

Solicitor‑client privilege remains fundamental and must be interpreted narrowly when assessing waiver.

The master correctly concluded that only documents connected to the affidavit’s subject matter were producible and that broader disclosure of the law firm’s entire file was not required.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to remove opposing counsel on the basis of an alleged conflict of interest arising from prior interactions with one of the defendants during the lawyer’s previous employment at another firm.

The defendants alleged that confidential information was disclosed during a business lunch and argued that the lawyer should therefore be disqualified.

Applying the test from MacDonald Estate v. Martin, the court held that the defendants failed to establish that material confidential information relevant to the action had been imparted.

The court further found that any information discussed was either not confidential, not shown to be relevant, or had already been disclosed in the litigation record.

The motion to remove counsel was dismissed and costs were awarded against the moving parties.

In the liability phase of a civil trial arising from a dispute between a construction contractor and a municipality, the court determined liability on the contractor’s claim and the municipality’s counterclaims.

The contractor succeeded on its claim and on its defence to the counterclaims.

The municipality’s counterclaims were dismissed.

The court indicated that detailed reasons would follow and directed the parties to provide written submissions regarding costs of the trial phase.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 20.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim had already been settled and therefore no genuine issue required a trial.

The court held that the defendant failed to establish on the evidentiary record that a binding settlement existed or that the alleged settlement was not unconscionable.

Outstanding factual issues included whether the parties had reached a meeting of the minds, whether a signed release was an essential condition, and whether the plaintiff had adequate information and advice when negotiating the settlement with the insurer’s adjuster.

Applying the unconscionability framework from Titus v. William F. Cooke Enterprises Inc., the court found that the record was insufficient to determine the fairness of the transaction or the balance of bargaining power.

The court concluded that genuine issues requiring a trial remained.

In a personal injury action arising from a slip and fall in a grocery store parking lot, the defendants brought a motion seeking compliance with outstanding undertakings given by the plaintiffs during examinations for discovery.

Numerous requests and prior directions had been made for the undertakings to be fulfilled, including requests for financial records, medical documentation, and particulars relating to damages and care costs.

The court held that litigants have an ongoing obligation to provide information undertaken at discovery and cannot rely on procedural rules regarding particulars to delay disclosure until shortly before trial.

The court found that many undertakings remained outstanding and that the materials produced did not adequately particularize damages.

An order was granted requiring the plaintiffs to fulfill the undertakings by a specified deadline.

The court reconsidered a prior costs decision after receiving late submissions from counsel for the respondent.

The issue concerned whether the court had jurisdiction to order costs against the respondent when the notice of application had requested costs only against an incapable person.

The court permitted the applicant to file written submissions addressing the jurisdictional issue within 15 days.

The endorsement dealt solely with the procedural reconsideration of the costs determination.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and, alternatively, sought security for costs under Rule 56.01(d).

The court held that a pleading need not expressly name a cause of action provided it pleads sufficient material facts to support a recognized legal claim.

While the claim adequately pleaded causes of action including knowing assistance and inducing breach of contract, the allegation of fraud was materially deficient because it failed to provide particularized allegations against each moving party as required by Rule 25.06(8).

The court struck the fraud allegation with leave to amend but dismissed the remainder of the motion.

The request for security for costs was also dismissed because the evidence of a small PPSR registration did not establish good reason to believe the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets to satisfy a potential costs award.

In a class proceeding relating to alleged misconduct involving a public corporation, the court addressed a correction to a prior costs decision.

The earlier reasons contained a factual error regarding the quantum of costs awarded to certain defendants on a motion to amend.

On consent of the parties, the court corrected the error and revised the amount payable.

The corrected award granted the defendants all‑inclusive costs for the amendments motion in a lower amount than originally stated.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion under Rule 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order preserving a specific fund by requiring the defendants to pay into court the anticipated proceeds of sale of a commercial property, or a portion thereof, pending determination of outstanding damage claims arising from a failed closing under an agreement of purchase and sale.

The court reviewed the governing test requiring a proprietary claim to a reasonably identifiable fund, a serious issue to be tried, and a balance of convenience favouring the order.

The court held that the plaintiff’s claim was for unproven damages, including an alleged abatement of the purchase price and lost profits, rather than a proprietary interest in the sale proceeds.

As the plaintiff failed to establish a legal right to a specific fund as required by Rule 45.02, the motion was dismissed without consideration of the remaining elements of the test.

The defendants brought an unopposed motion seeking several forms of relief in a construction lien action, including vacating a claim for lien and certificate of action, ordering security for costs, and compelling production of financial records and responses to undertakings.

The court considered s. 44(2) of the Construction Lien Act and determined that, based on the defendants’ evidence and the absence of any responding materials from the plaintiff, there was no genuine issue requiring trial in relation to the lien claim.

The lien and certificate of action were therefore vacated without requiring any payment into court.

The court also applied Rule 56.01(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that security for costs was appropriate because the plaintiff corporation appeared to lack sufficient assets in Ontario.

Security for costs was ordered in the amount of $17,500 along with production obligations and costs of the motion.

Following the dismissal of a motion by a proposed intervenor seeking to be added as a party to an unrelated civil action, the court addressed costs.

The court held that the proposed intervenor had no connection to the underlying action and that the motion raised no issue of public interest or bona fide legal concern.

Exercising its discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court determined that costs should be awarded to the defendants despite their representation by Crown counsel.

While acknowledging the unsuccessful party’s limited financial means, the court emphasized that litigants, including incarcerated individuals, remain responsible for the costs consequences of misguided or unnecessary procedural steps.

Costs of $500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes were awarded.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of a statement of claim alleging negligence and abuse of position against a band council, its employees, and police officers arising from a disputed land transfer on reserve lands.

The court held that employees of a band council are analogous to municipal officials and benefit from protections against personal liability for acts performed in good faith in the exercise of public duties.

The pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action against the individually named defendants and did not adequately particularize how the police conduct caused the plaintiff’s alleged damages.

The claims against the individual defendants were struck, but the negligence action against the band council itself was allowed to proceed.

The plaintiff was granted leave to file a fresh statement of claim compliant with the Rules of Civil Procedure and could amend to plead fraud, bad faith, or dishonesty if supported.

Costs decision following a motion in an estates dispute concerning an objection to an application for a certificate of appointment as estate trustee.

The responding party had been successful on the underlying motion and sought full indemnity costs.

The court considered the applicants’ earlier offer to withdraw the objection without costs and the proportionality of the costs claimed relative to the overall litigation.

Finding that the issues argued on the motion were limited largely to costs and that the respondent’s claimed motion costs were disproportionate, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicants partial costs of the motion.

Following earlier judgments concerning the sale of a winery business, the respondent sought costs related to proceedings leading to the order directing that the winery be listed for sale.

The moving party requested partial indemnity costs after the court found that the opposing parties’ proposed sale arrangements were inconsistent with the court’s earlier judgment and appeared designed to delay the sale.

The court considered the financial circumstances of the parties and the context of the dispute involving a failed winery venture funded by an investor and operated by the applicants.

Despite the moving party’s general success, the court declined to award costs.

The court cautioned that failure to cooperate with the ordered sale could result in significant future cost consequences.