Civil Litigation - Defendant

The applicant, a 50% shareholder and operator of a pharmacy, sought an interlocutory injunction in the context of an oppression remedy application against the respondent shareholders.

The respondents had suspended the applicant's employment and changed bank signing authorities after discovering alleged self-dealing.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for broad injunctive relief that would have excluded the respondents from the business, finding it went far beyond maintaining the status quo.

The court ordered limited interim measures, including dual-signature requirements for cheques, and directed the parties to agree on a valuator for a potential buyout.

Following a summary trial regarding unpaid invoices under a construction contract, the plaintiff was awarded a principal judgment with a set-off granted to the defendant.

The court received written submissions on prejudgment interest and costs.

The court clarified that prejudgment interest would be awarded in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act, as the plaintiff's Statement of Claim did not plead the 24% rate requested at trial.

On costs, the court found that success was divided both financially and contextually, and ordered that each side bear its own costs.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions refused during her examination for discovery in a wrongful dismissal and whistleblower retaliation action.

The questions sought the identities of confidential informants who provided the plaintiff with information about her termination and an internal investigation.

The court upheld the plaintiff's refusals regarding her termination, finding the identities irrelevant.

However, the court ordered the plaintiff to disclose the source of her information regarding the HR director's presentation, as the communication did not meet the Wigmore criteria for common law privilege.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the certification order in a class action concerning a bacterial infection outbreak among patients who received epidural steroid injections from the defendant physician.

The plaintiff sought to revise and expand the common issues to include negligence, causation based on epidemiological evidence, fiduciary duty, and limitation periods, and to add two subclasses.

The defendant physician brought a cross-motion to decertify the action, arguing that causation and standard of care required individualized assessments.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the certification order and dismissed the defendant's motion to decertify, finding that the plaintiff's novel methodology of using statistical correlation to prove causation met the 'some basis in fact' standard for certification and should be tested at a common issues trial.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action, which sought $14 million in damages for various torts including fraud, breach of confidence, and conspiracy.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants conspired with the Canada Revenue Agency to falsely accuse him of tax evasion, leading to his wrongful conviction, and illegally transferred his Teraview software license.

The court granted the motion, finding the software claims were barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The remaining claims, characterized as malicious prosecution, failed because the proceedings were initiated by the CRA and resulted in the plaintiff's conviction, not a termination in his favour.

The defendant lawyers brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs in a professional negligence action.

The plaintiffs had previously been found liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and had unpaid costs awards of $4.5 million against them.

The court found good reason to believe the action was frivolous and vexatious, and that the plaintiffs had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish impecuniosity.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiffs were ordered to post $20,000 each as security for costs.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to stay their Ontario action against their insurer in favour of an arbitration in India.

The underlying dispute involved machinery damaged during transit.

The court dismissed the appeal, noting that the limitation period had expired and no arbitration had actually been commenced in India.

The Master was found to have applied the correct principles in refusing the stay.

The defendants, a criminal defence lawyer and his firm, brought a motion to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim.

The plaintiff had previously filed complaints against the defendants with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and the Law Society of Ontario after the lawyer removed himself from the record in the plaintiff's criminal proceedings.

The court found the action was not an abuse of process or vexatious, as the administrative complaints were not decided on their merits.

However, the court struck the statement of claim in its entirety under Rule 25.11, finding it contained irrelevant, inflammatory allegations and failed to plead necessary legal elements.

The plaintiff was granted leave to amend.

The applicant, a restaurant franchisor, moved for an injunction to prevent the respondent landlord from leasing premises in the same mall to a bingo hall, arguing it violated an exclusivity clause prohibiting leases to any 'restaurant, bar or other food service business'.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the bingo hall's ancillary snack bar did not make it a food service business within the meaning of the exclusivity clause.

The court held there was no serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

The plaintiff condominium corporation moved for summary judgment to recover a $196,620 advance payment made to the defendant contractor after terminating a hallway upgrade contract.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the nature of the payment (whether a deposit, advance, or liquidated damages), the juristic reason for the defendant to keep it, and the identity of the proper corporate defendant.

The court concluded that a full appreciation of the evidence could not be achieved on the written record alone.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 37.14(1) to set aside an order dismissing its construction lien action.

The action had been dismissed after the plaintiff failed to attend a motion following the removal of its former counsel of record.

The court found that the plaintiff did not receive actual notice of the removal order and that its failure to attend the dismissal motion was due to an accident or mistake by its president, who mistakenly believed former counsel would attend.

The court set aside the dismissal order, finding the plaintiff moved forthwith, without unreasonable delay, and that the defendant would not be prejudiced.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' motion for an interlocutory injunction under the oppression provisions of the Business Corporations Act, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The applicants argued they were justified in bringing the motion and sought their own costs despite being unsuccessful.

The court rejected this argument, finding no reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The court awarded the successful respondents their costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $2,750 for fees plus HST and $175.56 for disbursements.

The applicants, a municipal township and its council members, sought a declaration that their liability insurer, the respondent, had a duty to defend them in a civil action.

The underlying action alleged misfeasance in public office and Charter breaches arising from a trespass notice issued against a resident.

The insurer denied coverage for the individual council members, arguing the claims were akin to punitive damages and excluded.

The court found that the pleadings alleged bodily and personal injury falling within the policy's coverage grant and endorsements, and no exclusions applied.

The application was granted, and the insurer was ordered to defend all applicants.

Following the dismissal of the Estate Trustee's motion to strike a Notice of Objection to Accounts, and the subsequent dismissal of his appeal, the responding beneficiary sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the Estate Trustee acted unreasonably and in his own self-interest, justifying an elevated costs award.

The court ordered the Estate Trustee to personally pay the responding party's costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $47,963.67.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff under Rule 56.01(d).

The plaintiff sued for unpaid invoices relating to network infrastructure work, while the defendant counterclaimed for fraud and unjust enrichment, alleging overcharging.

The court found that the plaintiff was impecunious, largely due to a significant tax debt to the CRA, and that its claim had a good chance of success.

Consequently, the court held that an order for security for costs would be unjust and dismissed the motion.

The applicant lawyer brought a motion for a charging order over the proceeds of an after-the-event insurance policy to secure outstanding fee and disbursement accounts.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was an impermissible collateral attack and an abuse of process, as the applicant's entitlement to the proceeds had already been decided in a previous application.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the motion was not an abuse of process, the applicant did not meet the test for a charging order because the proceeds were not property recovered or preserved through the instrumentality of the solicitor in the proceeding.

The applicants sought costs of $18,000 on a partial indemnity basis, or alternatively no costs, following an application where they were largely successful in being removed as trustees of a Henson trust but unsuccessful in seeking directions to sell a farm.

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $30,555.90 payable by the applicants from their shares of the estate.

The court found there was divided success and ordered that no costs be awarded.

The plaintiffs brought an action in defamation against the defendant, a former union member, for publishing numerous derogatory posts and videos online.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, and the defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that an anti-SLAPP motion can be heard concurrently with a summary judgment motion.

The court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that while the expression related to a matter of public interest, the harm suffered by the plaintiffs outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding the posts defamatory and malicious, and awarded a permanent injunction and costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that her motor vehicle insurance policy was valid at the time of her accident, alleging she paid her broker in cash before cancellation.

The defendant insurer brought a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing the policy was properly cancelled for non-payment and that the plaintiff's claim for statutory accident benefits was statute-barred.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that a trial was necessary to assess the credibility of the plaintiff and her husband regarding the alleged cash payment, which constituted a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Following a motion where the plaintiff was unsuccessful in obtaining a Mareva injunction but successful in obtaining an order for interim possession of a jewellery set, both parties sought costs.

The court found that success was substantially divided and the costs sought by the plaintiff were excessive.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01, the court ordered that the parties bear their own costs.