Civil Litigation - Defendant

The plaintiff, Massimo Gargari, brought a motion seeking the production of a class register from 1983-1984 in a historical abuse case, arguing that former classmates might be witnesses to alleged abuse.

The defendant, Toronto Catholic District School Board, opposed the request, primarily citing prohibitions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPP).

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion as premature, ruling that the plaintiff had not exhausted the statutory remedies available under the MFIPP for the disclosure of personal information, which includes a specific procedure and an appeal process.

The court emphasized the need to protect the privacy of individuals, particularly those who were children at the time the records were created.

This decision reconsiders a previous costs award concerning two applications.

The self-represented litigants, William Alexander Young and John David Dinsdale, sought costs for their time spent on work ordinarily done by a lawyer, in addition to previously awarded partial indemnity for legal services and disbursements.

The court approved a minor increase in disbursements but maintained its ruling that Young and Dinsdale had not sufficiently proven lost opportunities for remuneration for their self-represented time.

The court also noted their role was akin to interveners, who typically do not receive costs.

The plaintiff, Planet Paper Box Group Inc., sought to extend an ex parte interim injunction against its former sales representative, Mary McEwan, to restrain her from contacting customers and using confidential information.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the initial ex parte motion was not urgent and that the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts, particularly regarding the source of its information and the defendant's actual employer.

The court also ruled that the affidavit evidence based on information and belief was inadmissible due to the lack of specified sources, thereby eroding the evidentiary basis for the injunction.

The plaintiff was entirely unsuccessful in her summary judgment motion against the defendant Port Dalhousie Vitalization Corporation (PDVC).

PDVC sought partial and substantial indemnity costs, as well as disbursements, having made two Rule 49 offers to settle which were not accepted.

The court, applying Rule 57 principles, found many of the defendant's claimed fees excessive and unnecessary, particularly regarding the involvement of two counsel, hours spent on boilerplate pleadings, and an aggressive stance against a pro forma motion to amend pleadings.

The court also reduced claimed disbursements, disallowing a previous costs award against the defendant and significantly reducing an orthopaedic report fee and a legal research fee.

Considering the plaintiff's personal circumstances and the novel, though unsuccessful, legal argument, the court awarded the defendant $20,000.00 in all-inclusive costs, a significant reduction from the $65,402.27 sought.

The plaintiff, Damiano Di Martino, sought summary judgment against Giuseppe Montana and Calogera Montana for $240,000 arising from a loan agreement.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that a late payment clause in the agreement did not apply to the plaintiff's loan, Mr. Montana was not entitled to deduct claimed expenses or a penalty, and Ms. Montana was jointly liable due to unjust enrichment as the loan funds were deposited into her account for her benefit.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion brought by the plaintiffs for a further and better affidavit of documents and a timetable for trial.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs, finding that the defendants' unexplained delay, particularly given the plaintiffs' advanced age and frail health, constituted bad faith.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the complexity, importance, and conduct of the parties.

While adjusting the plaintiffs' claimed fees for waiting time and excessive photocopy charges, the court largely upheld the claim, noting the defendants' failure to provide their own dockets for comparison.

The court issued Addendum #2 to its judgment, addressing the delay in finalizing the order and an attempt by Emad Elguindy to circumvent the lawful distribution of funds to his judgment creditors.

The court ordered the parties to appear to finalize the judgment, directed the payment of $138,000 to Irene Elguindy, and mandated the Sheriff of Peel Region to receive $130,000 owed to Emad Elguindy to satisfy registered Writs of Execution in Halton and Peel under the Creditors’ Relief Act, treating the regions as a singular district for pro-rata distribution.

The court also commended counsel for providing necessary information regarding the writs.

This costs endorsement followed two related motions where the defendants largely succeeded in striking claims under Rule 21, terminating claims against all defendants except The TDL Group.

The court awarded costs to the successful defendants, finding no reason to depart from the usual practice that the unsuccessful side pays.

Despite the plaintiffs' arguments that the hourly rates and overall costs requested were excessive, the court found them within the norm for large firm litigation given the magnitude of the claims.

The court exercised its discretion to slightly reduce the requested costs, awarding $44,000 to the defendants in the 152 Action and $40,000 to the defendants in the Walker Action, acknowledging that the defendants were not 100% successful in dismissing the actions without leave to amend.

The plaintiff, Istvan Hirosik, brought a summary judgment motion seeking long-term disability benefits from Canada Life Assurance Company, along with aggravated, exemplary, and punitive damages.

The central issue was whether Hirosik's current lumbar spine disability qualified as a new claim or a recurrent disability under the policy, given his complex medical history.

The defendant argued the motion was inappropriate due to insufficient medical evidence to assess disability, causation, and credibility.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the medical issues too complex for summary judgment without a complete medical record and expert evidence, and directed the matter to proceed to trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to prevent the dismissal of its action for delay.

The defendants opposed the motion, seeking dismissal of the action against them.

The court found that the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the litigation delay, which included ongoing settlement discussions and issues related to the decommissioning of a gas station site.

The court also determined that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

Consequently, the motion was granted, the action was allowed to proceed, and a timetable for the remaining steps was ordered.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for back injuries sustained during a job demonstration.

Following a four-day liability trial, the action was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs.

The successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $156,015.04.

The plaintiffs argued for minimal costs due to their impecuniosity and criticized the defendants' conduct regarding adjournments and witness calling.

The court fixed the defendants' costs at $135,000, inclusive of disbursements and H.S.T., finding the plaintiffs' impecuniosity unsupported by sufficient evidence to warrant a reduction.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for unpaid wages, equity interest, and intellectual property ownership, arguing the claims were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the plaintiff had discovered the material facts giving rise to his claims by December 2009 at the latest, well outside the two-year limitation period for the action commenced in January 2012.

The court rejected arguments that the unpaid wages constituted a "demand obligation" and that declaratory relief without consequential relief was exempt from limitation periods, as the plaintiff sought mandatory relief.

Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's action was dismissed.

The Commonwell Mutual Assurance Group (CMAG) sought a declaration that it was not obliged to defend or indemnify Shayne Campbell in a personal injury action.

The accident involved an off-road vehicle operated by Campbell, which Guarantee Company of North America (Guarantee) had already denied coverage for under Campbell's automobile policy.

The court found that Guarantee was within its rights to deny coverage due to policy exclusions related to employer-owned vehicles and policy breaches (unlicensed driver, unregistered vehicle).

However, CMAG, having defended Campbell for an extended period (since 2015) without a non-waiver agreement or reservation of rights, was estopped from denying coverage.

The court emphasized that an insurer must be clear about its position and not leave an insured with a false belief of protection.

CMAG's application was dismissed, and Campbell's parallel application against Guarantee was also dismissed.

The plaintiff, a land developer, sought insurance coverage from the defendant insurer for five underlying actions alleging misrepresentation of lot sizes, leading to claims of reduced property size and loss of use.

The defendant moved for a declaration that the alleged smaller lot sizes did not constitute "property damage" under its Comprehensive General Liability policy, and thus it had no duty to defend.

The plaintiff cross-moved for an order that the defendant did have a duty to defend.

The court found that the underlying claims for "loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured" could constitute "property damage" as defined in the policy, particularly given the purchasers' equitable interest in the land.

Consequently, the court dismissed the defendant's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion, declaring that the defendant had a duty to defend.

The court also addressed the issue of counsel selection, stating that merely disputing the duty to defend or indemnify does not automatically create a conflict requiring the insurer to surrender control of counsel appointment.

KSP Holdings Inc. moved for disclosure of documents referenced in an affidavit by plaintiff's counsel, Marc Kestenberg, filed in response to KSP's motion for a stay.

KSP argued the documents were required under Rule 30.04(2), were relevant and not privileged, or that privilege had been waived.

The plaintiff claimed irrelevance and settlement privilege.

The court found the documents relevant to determining the true date of settlement between the plaintiff and a co-defendant, Secure Capital Advisors Inc., and that any settlement privilege was waived by extensive reference to the documents and negotiation details in the affidavit.

The court also held that Rule 30.04(2) mandates production of documents referred to in an affidavit, regardless of privilege.

The motion for disclosure was granted, and KSP was awarded costs.

The applicant, Steve Smith, sought specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to purchase a unique lakefront property from the respondents, Terry Richard Vankoughnet and Jeremy Rasmussen.

Concurrently, the respondents moved to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) that Smith had obtained against the property.

The court found no binding oral or written agreement, no sufficient acts of part performance to overcome the Statute of Frauds, and that the property was not unique such that damages would be an inadequate remedy.

The court also noted issues with Smith's identity as the "true applicant" acting for a non-existent corporation.

Consequently, the motion to discharge the CPL was granted, and Smith's application for specific performance was dismissed.

This decision addresses the costs arising from two unsuccessful motions brought by the self-represented applicant, Farhad Derakhshan, seeking various relief including amending the claim, document production, action consolidation, and property inspection by an appraiser.

The motions were dismissed as wasteful of time and money.

The court awarded costs to the respondent, Seema Narula, at 80% of her counsel's hourly rates, totaling $5,388.70, payable within 30 days.

The court emphasized that cost rules apply equally to self-represented litigants and that the applicant's conduct was unreasonable.

The Applicants sought substantial indemnity costs after successfully obtaining a statutory injunction and declaratory relief against the Respondent for contravening a municipal zoning by-law.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs, finding the Respondent's conduct did not meet the "reprehensible" or "egregious" threshold required for such an award.

The court also rejected the argument that the public interest nature of by-law enforcement warranted higher costs.

Instead, the court awarded partial indemnity costs, fixing fees and disbursements based on the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, considering the complexity and importance of the matter.