Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The plaintiff former employee brought a motion to compel the defendant employer to answer questions refused on discovery and produce documents over which the defendants claimed solicitor-client privilege.

The defendants had produced certain emails between their lawyer and a senior employee in their affidavit of documents and answered questions about them on discovery, later claiming the disclosure was inadvertent.

The court found the disclosure was not inadvertent and that the defendants could not selectively waive privilege to support their defence of acting in good faith while withholding other communications on the same issue.

The motion was granted, and the defendants were ordered to produce all related communications.

Following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff sought costs of $13,418.32, including a substantial indemnity portion based on an offer to settle.

The court found Rule 49.10 did not apply as the offer was served on the morning of the hearing.

Considering the mixed success on issues, unnecessary cross-examinations, and the factors under Rule 57.01, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $7,250.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a previous decision that dismissed part of the applicant's application and converted the balance into an action.

The respondent sought 83% of its partial indemnity costs, arguing it was substantially successful on the dismissed issue.

The applicant argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge.

The court awarded the respondent $65,000 in costs for the dismissed issue, finding the applicant's changing case theory unnecessarily increased costs, and reserved the remaining costs to the trial judge.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for directions regarding the proper scope of questioning when examining a non-party witness on a pending motion under Rule 39.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the scope of such an examination is limited solely to the personal knowledge of the witness.

A Rule 39.03 witness is not required to take reasonable steps to inform themselves prior to being examined, nor are they obliged to make enquiries of others if they cannot answer questions due to a lack of knowledge or recollection.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim, which alleged defamation, injurious falsehood, and intentional interference with economic relations.

The court struck the paragraphs alleging a 'campaign of defamation' because the plaintiffs failed to plead a coherent body of fact regarding the defamatory statements.

The court declined to strike the pleadings of malice and injurious falsehood, finding they did not necessarily encroach upon solicitor-client privilege.

The court struck the claim for intentional interference with economic relations, as no duty of care was owed to the third parties, but granted leave to amend.

The insured drove a snowmobile after consuming alcohol to rescue a friend who was lost on a frozen lake.

The insured held a valid driver's licence but was in breach of a probation order prohibiting him from driving with alcohol in his blood.

Following an accident that seriously injured the friend, the insured's automobile insurer denied coverage, arguing he was not 'authorized by law to drive' under statutory condition 4.

The court held that 'authorized by law' refers to the possession of and compliance with a valid driver's licence, not court orders or legislative prohibitions.

The insurer was ordered to provide full coverage.

The defendants brought a motion for a declaration that the plaintiff's statutory secondary market misrepresentation claim under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act was statute-barred.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking an order granting leave nunc pro tunc to save the claim.

The court found that while the plaintiff was not barred by issue estoppel or abuse of process from arguing for a nunc pro tunc order, the request failed on its merits.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in CIBC v. Green, the court held that a nunc pro tunc order was not available because the plaintiff had not filed a motion for leave before the expiry of the limitation period, and the equitable factors did not favour granting the order.

The defendants' motion was granted and the plaintiff's cross-motion was dismissed.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to argue a motion for summary judgment mid-trial, and the respondent brought a motion for directions seeking a trial de novo following a mistrial declared by the previous trial judge.

The court dismissed the motion for leave for summary judgment, interpreting Rule 16(1) of the Family Law Rules to mean that such motions must be brought before a trial commences.

The court also dismissed the respondent's request for a trial de novo, ordering that the trial continue from the point where the evidence concluded, in accordance with a prior Divisional Court order.

The plaintiff landlord sought default judgment against the defendant tenant for unpaid rent and damages after the tenant abandoned the commercial premises.

The court awarded net damages for lost revenue and unpaid rent, but dismissed the claim for additional damages related to the alleged fraudulent removal of goods due to insufficient evidence of civil fraud.

The court also granted an amendment to add the tenant's operating name as a defendant and awarded costs.

The defendants appealed a Master's order dismissing their motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay under Rule 24.01(1)(c).

The underlying action involved complex allegations of mortgage fraud against multiple defendants.

The Master had found the plaintiffs' explanation for the delay inadequate but concluded that the presumption of prejudice was partially rebutted and that the balance of factors favoured allowing the action to proceed.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the Master's holistic consideration of the relevant factors and dismissed the appeal.

The minor plaintiff was injured when struck by a tow truck near the proposed defendants' home.

The minor's father was appointed litigation guardian and sued the tow truck owner and driver, who counterclaimed for negligent supervision and third-partied the homeowners.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiffs moved to add the homeowners as defendants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the father knew the material facts on the day of the accident, and held that a litigation guardian's potential conflict of interest does not suspend the running of the limitation period.

Supplementary reasons regarding costs following two interlocutory motions: the plaintiff's motion for preservation of funds and the defendant's motion for security for costs.

The court found that success was divided on both motions and ordered no costs.

The court also declined the defendant's request to reserve costs to the trial judge, emphasizing the policy objective under Rule 57.03 that costs of contested motions should be determined at the time of the hearing.

The plaintiff, a successful retail stockbroker, sued his former employer for breach of contract, alleging he was owed a 10% finder's fee on several large corporate finance transactions under an April 11, 2006 agreement.

The court found that the agreement was exclusively a retail document and did not apply to transactions involving the employer's Capital Markets group.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claims for negligent overpayment of his assistant, unjust enrichment, bad faith, and entitlement to unvested deferred stock units.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 37.14 to set aside a registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

The action arose from a slip and fall at a subway station.

The delay was largely attributed to communication issues, missing correspondence, and the plaintiff's former counsel's health issues.

Applying the Reid factors, the Master found that the delay was adequately explained, the failure to set down was inadvertent, and the defendant suffered no actual prejudice.

The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action on a summary judgment motion, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $42,469.53.

The plaintiffs opposed the costs award, arguing that special circumstances justified denying costs to the defendant.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding no unreasonable conduct by the defendant.

The court reduced the claimed fees slightly due to some duplication of work and awarded the defendant $29,000 in fees, plus HST and $6,650 in disbursements, subject to clarification on a potential setoff claimed by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation regarding a terminated agreement of purchase and sale for commercial property.

The plaintiff had failed to close the transaction due to a lack of funds and waived tender, resulting in the forfeiture of its deposits.

The plaintiff subsequently alleged that the defendant failed to disclose unrelated litigation in Quebec, arguing this non-disclosure kept the agreement alive.

The court found the Quebec litigation irrelevant, determined the property was not unique, and concluded damages would be an adequate remedy.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion regarding evidentiary issues arising from a scheduled show cause hearing under Rule 48.14.

The plaintiff had delivered its show cause record only one week before the hearing, prompting the defendant to serve a responding affidavit raising the issue of prejudice.

The plaintiff sought to file a Reply Record and cross-examine the defendant's affiant on prejudice.

The Master found the plaintiff was responsible for the late delivery of materials but, given the severe consequences of a show cause hearing, exercised discretion to allow the plaintiff to file a Reply Record and conduct the cross-examination, restricted solely to the issue of prejudice and subject to costs.

In an action concerning an alleged conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of her share of her late father's estate, the plaintiff moved for further production of pre-2004 medical records from the defendant doctor and the federal government regarding her father's shock therapy in 1969 or 1970.

The defendant Birch also moved to compel the plaintiff to answer a refusal to obtain records from Bell Canada regarding an alleged wiretap.

The court dismissed all motions, finding the plaintiff's production requests lacked relevance and violated the principle of proportionality, and that Birch's motion for Bell Canada records was also disproportionate given the minimal relevance and alternative remedies available.

Following a finding of oppression against the respondent condominium corporation and an award of $30,000 in general damages, the applicant sought costs ranging from $34,138.90 to $41,413.28.

The respondent argued for costs fixed at $10,000.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the applicant's success but also criticizing the applicant's excessive damages claim, unreasonable settlement offer, and failure to adhere to page limits for costs submissions.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 all-inclusive.

The defendant bank moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claim and granting its counterclaim for outstanding loan balances and possession of the mortgaged property.

The plaintiffs alleged a bank teller misappropriated a cash payment, claiming this fundamental breach extinguished their debt obligations.

The court found no evidence that a cash payment was made, concluding the teller merely made a transactional error that caused no loss.

Finding no genuine issue for trial, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim and granted summary judgment to the bank on its counterclaim.