Civil Litigation - Defendant

The defendant, Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS), brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff, Sardar Saadilla, alleged missing funds and mistreatment after BNS closed his accounts.

The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing all claims except for two specific issues related to a disputed $20,000 cash deposit made by the plaintiff.

The court found no genuine issues for trial regarding other claims or account balances, but determined that the circumstances surrounding the $20,000 deposit required a trial.

This case is a re-hearing on damages following a Divisional Court decision that remitted the matter back to the trial judge for a proper valuation of the plaintiff's 25% share interest in the defendant company, My Insurance Brokerage (MIB), after a breach of contract.

The court assessed conflicting expert evidence on share valuation, utilizing both income/cash flow and market multiple methods.

The plaintiff's expert's opinion was approached with caution due to an undisclosed professional relationship and unrealistic assumptions regarding minority discount and the impact of the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

While generally preferring the defendant's expert's methodology, the court found an error in valuing MIB as a start-up and ordered an upward adjustment to the cash flow multiple.

The final fair market value of the shares was to be determined as the midpoint between the recalculated income/cash flow valuation and the market method valuation.

This endorsement addresses costs for a motion brought by Daniel Sherk, seeking to compel Verge Insurance Brokers Limited to pay the balance of Deloitte's forensic accounting fees.

Daniel Sherk was unsuccessful in his motion.

The court awarded Verge partial indemnity costs, fixing them at $37,500.00, significantly less than the $79,629.31 requested on a substantial indemnity basis.

Additionally, Verge was awarded $1,500.00 for its involvement in Deloitte's separate application for payment.

The court emphasized reasonableness and proportionality in fixing costs, noting that the motion was uncomplicated and senior counsel's time appeared inordinate.

This decision provides reasons for citing Nadire Atas for four incidents of contempt of court and outlines the subsequent sentencing.

The contempt findings relate to repeated improper communications with the court, failure to attend a mandatory case management conference, disrespectful conduct towards the court, and failure to pay court fees or properly obtain a fee waiver.

The court emphasizes the importance of obeying court orders, the finality of judicial decisions, and the proper procedure for raising issues like bias or functus officio.

Sentences included a one-year suspended sentence for improper communications, an absolute discharge for the fee waiver issue (after purging contempt), a six-month conditional sentence for insolence, and a five-day jail sentence for failing to attend court.

The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendants for fraud.

The defendant Ablacksingh was found in civil contempt for failing to comply with court orders related to providing an accounting and attending examinations in aid of execution.

This decision addresses the sentencing for contempt, punitive damages, and costs.

The court imposed a two-month conditional sentence on Ablacksingh, ordered him to take down misleading websites and photographs, and awarded $20,000 in punitive damages and $40,000 in costs to the plaintiff.

This costs endorsement follows a motion where the defendant sought dismissal of the plaintiff's claim, which was denied, but other orders were made to advance the matter.

The plaintiff, self-represented, sought costs.

The court found the plaintiff was prima facie entitled to costs as the defendant was unsuccessful in its primary request for dismissal.

However, the plaintiff's claim for costs was significantly reduced due to insufficient evidence of lost remunerative activity, excessive hours claimed, and unsubstantiated disbursements.

The court awarded the plaintiff $500 in costs, inclusive of time and disbursements, noting that the plaintiff's inaction necessitated some of the orders made.

The Plaintiff sought damages for wrongful dismissal and unpaid commissions.

Both parties brought motions for summary judgment.

The Defendants sought dismissal of the action or alternative judgment for a small amount.

The Plaintiff brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on wrongful dismissal damages.

The court found the termination provision in the Plaintiff's employment contract void and unenforceable due to potential non-compliance with the Employment Standards Act, 2000, entitling the Plaintiff to common law reasonable notice, which was fixed at five months.

The Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the commission claim and enforceability of the "Entire Agreement Clause" was dismissed, as genuine issues requiring a trial remained due to insufficient evidence regarding the parties' intentions and the unconscionability of the clause.

Mr. Gandhi sued Zev Investments Limited for injuries sustained after slipping on a liquid in his apartment building's stairwell.

Zev brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing no genuine issue for trial existed, as Mr. Gandhi's theories about the hazard were inconsistent and refuted by their evidence.

Mr. Gandhi maintained he slipped on paint or paint oil spilled by Zev's contractor and argued Zev failed to maintain a proper inspection system.

The court dismissed Zev's motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the cause of the fall, Zev's vicarious liability, and the adequacy of its maintenance system, concluding that a summary judgment process would not be proportionate or efficient given the need for extensive witness testimony.

The Plaintiff, Wonderland Power Centre Inc., initiated an action against Post and Beam on Wonderland Inc. concerning a restrictive covenant on land previously sold by Wonderland's predecessor to the London Public Library Board.

Wonderland sought an injunction, a declaration that the covenant was binding, and rectification of the land register if it was unenforceable.

Post and Beam sought summary judgment dismissing the action and a declaration that the covenant was unenforceable.

The court found the registered restrictive covenant unenforceable due to its failure to identify the benefiting lands as required by the Land Titles Act.

However, the court granted Wonderland's request for rectification of the register, noting Post and Beam's actual notice of the intended restriction.

Wonderland's motion for an interim injunction was dismissed due to a lack of irreparable harm, and Post and Beam's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, with remaining claims for a permanent injunction and damages to proceed to trial.

This motion concerned the amendment of a statement of claim for statutory accident benefits (SABs) to include claims for medical and rehabilitation benefits denied post-issuance and a declaration of catastrophic impairment.

The action was commenced prior to 2016 amendments to the Insurance Act which removed the right to bring actions for SABs disputes, redirecting them to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT).

The court granted the amendment, finding that the proposed changes constituted a particularization of claims already broadly pleaded in the original statement of claim, rather than new disputes arising after the statutory amendments.

The court emphasized the policy against multiplicity of proceedings and the potential for inconsistent findings if claims were bifurcated between the Superior Court and the LAT.

The plaintiff, Gore Mutual Insurance Company, sought a declaration that the defendant, Sovereign General Insurance Company, was required to provide coverage for the theft of a pick-up truck from Orr Motors, based on its garage policy.

Sovereign brought a motion for summary judgment, relying on a policy exclusion for leased vehicles.

The court found that the evidentiary record was insufficient to fully appreciate the case, particularly regarding the lease agreement's commencement and the reason the truck was on the lot at the time of theft.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to deficiencies in both parties' evidentiary submissions.

Following a seven-day trial where the plaintiff's claim for breach of a construction contract, negligent misrepresentation, and punitive damages was dismissed, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The plaintiff had wrongfully repudiated the contract, entitling the defendants to retain a $175,432.50 deposit.

The defendants had made three offers to settle, all more favourable than the judgment.

While the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, the court found no egregious misconduct by the plaintiff to warrant such an award.

Instead, the defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff sought costs for the defendant's abandoned motion for security for costs.

The court, applying Rule 37.09(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the plaintiff entitled to costs.

Considering the circumstances, including the delivery of motion records and preparation for cross-examinations but absence of facta or actual cross-examinations, the court fixed the all-inclusive costs at $10,000, rejecting both the plaintiff's higher claim of $21,847.65 and the defendant's lower offer of $4,500.

The decision emphasized that costs awards should reflect a fair and reasonable amount rather than an exact measure of actual costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for security for costs, which involved extensive cross-examination on the defendant's affidavit and numerous undertakings and refusals.

The court found that the motion was delving too deeply into the merits of the main action, causing undue delay and complexity, contrary to the principles of proportionality and efficient access to justice.

The motion for security for costs was adjourned sine die pending the completion of discoveries, with leave to re-bring it thereafter.

The court also provided directions for the production of certain financial documents by the defendant if the motion is pursued later and commented on the potential examination of a non-party.

The plaintiffs, successful in their negligence claims at trial, sought costs.

However, they deliberately withheld the terms of their contingency fee agreement with their insurer and individual clients.

The defendants argued for disclosure, citing the principle of indemnity in costs assessment.

The court found the non-disclosure intentional and crucial for properly fixing costs.

The court ordered plaintiffs' counsel to file the fee agreement under seal for judicial review to determine its compliance with O. Reg. 195/04 and to identify the terms requiring disclosure to the defendants for costs calculation.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a summary judgment motion where the plaintiffs were partially successful.

The court awarded summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs for damages, but dismissed their claim for forfeiture of the purchaser's deposit, instead allowing a credit for the deposits paid.

The plaintiffs sought costs of $47,964.29, but the court, applying Rule 57.01 and Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, reduced the award to $19,610.13, all-inclusive.

The reduction was based on the plaintiffs' divided success on the motion and their conduct affecting the length of the proceeding due to a lack of clarity in their financial submissions.

This costs endorsement addresses the quantum of costs for M. Sullivan & Son Limited and Dent Engineering (Michael Dent, Dent Engineering Ltd., and 1009044 Ontario Ltd.) following their successful motions for consequential relief.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument to cap costs based on settlements with other defendants, emphasizing that these motions involved distinct issues and factual matrices.

Applying Rule 57.01, the court fixed M. Sullivan & Son Limited's costs at $15,000 and Dent Engineering's costs at $6,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be paid by the plaintiff.

During a trial, the plaintiffs sought a mid-trial ruling to prevent the defendants from asserting the defence of inevitable or unavoidable accident, arguing it was not specifically pleaded as required by Rule 25.07(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ruled that a general denial of negligence in the statement of defence was sufficient to allow the defendants to raise the unavoidable accident defence, as there was no material difference in the legal test or onus, and the pleadings provided adequate notice to the plaintiffs.