Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

In a civil jury action arising from a slip-and-fall, the court addressed trial management after an exit pre-trial and a subsequent trial management conference.

The court found the responding party unprepared to narrow issues, including blanket denials of requests to admit and no meaningful engagement on a joint document brief.

The endorsement emphasizes that late-stage trial preparation wastes party and court resources and contributes to systemic delay.

The court directed a further exit pretrial before the May 2026 blitz sitting, required counsel to provide the endorsement to clients, and set a timetable for written costs submissions.

At an unopposed trial arising from deficient residential renovation work, the court considered the effect of unanswered requests to admit and struck the statement of defence.

The court accepted deemed admissions to establish liability for breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent misrepresentation, while declining to decide oppression-remedy standing because it was unnecessary to the monetary result.

The court held the defendants jointly and severally liable for proven damages of $1,046,438.14.

The court rejected the request for contractual 12% compound pre- and post-judgment interest and applied Courts of Justice Act interest rates.

On a motion concerning appellate jurisdiction, the court held that paragraph one of an order dated June 20, 2025 was interlocutory and did not prevent the respondents from relying on prior findings made in related proceedings.

Because the order was interlocutory, the appeal could not proceed and was quashed.

The court awarded costs of the motion to the moving party on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $7,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their summary judgment motion, arguing the respondent's claim was time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 rather than the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court held the claim, as pleaded, sought recovery of an interest in land or damages in lieu of that interest and therefore fell under the 10-year limitation period in the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court rejected new appellate arguments about contractual performance because those issues were not raised on the summary judgment motion.

It confirmed that an appeal from a failed summary judgment motion is not a vehicle for advancing fresh issues.

The appeal was dismissed, with costs awards to both responding parties and costs to the appellant on the stay motion.

The appellant appealed a Rule 2.01 order dismissing his action concerning the respondent's mortgage.

The court held the action raised no valid issue and found the motion judge's reasons were thorough.

No error warranting appellate intervention was established.

The appeal was dismissed, with costs fixed to the respondent.

In a civil costs decision following settlement of the main action, one defendant sought partial indemnity costs against the co-defendant for both the action and a crossclaim.

The court treated the hearing as a motion for costs and applied the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found the responding defendant's litigation position and delayed acceptance of the offer to settle caused unnecessary continuation of the proceeding and additional preparation costs.

While not granting the full amount requested, the court awarded an all-inclusive costs amount reflecting proportionality and the parties' relative success.

In a contentious estates proceeding, the court determined costs following an earlier dismissal of the moving party's request for payout of sale proceeds held in trust.

Both sides sought partial indemnity costs and each claimed success, but the court found divided success and held that neither side was completely successful.

Applying Rule 57.01 principles, the court found the amounts sought were excessive in light of proportionality and mixed results.

The court also found litigation conduct by both sides increased costs, while assigning primary responsibility for failing to add the estate party to the estate trustee.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 payable by one responding party to the moving party.

In a costs endorsement following a summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, the court resolved remaining disputes over costs and pre-judgment interest on RSUs and stock options.

Applying section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 factors, the court found the plaintiff mostly successful and fixed partial indemnity costs at the full amount claimed.

On interest, the court declined to depart from the presumptive statutory scheme under sections 128 and 130 because no unusual or special circumstances were proven and no evidence established a higher investment return.

The court emphasized legislative objectives of certainty and consistency in prejudgment interest determinations.

On a Rule 20 motion for summary judgment in a proposed class proceeding, the court held that s. 68(1) offering statement requirements under the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act apply to primary issuances and sales by a credit union, not to inter-member share transfers shown on this record.

Because the plaintiff and proposed class members acquired shares through transfers or dividend issuances that did not engage the statutory cause of action in s. 75(3), there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendant regulator's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim was granted.

In a constitutional compliance review arising from Robinson-Superior Treaty augmentation litigation, the moving parties challenged both the Crown's engagement process and the compensation amount set after negotiations failed.

The court held that although aspects of engagement, including late disclosure of reliance on per-capita benchmarking against a related treaty settlement, caused serious relational harm, the reviewing role required deference to a range of honourable discretionary outcomes.

Applying a sui generis review framework grounded in honour of the Crown and reconciliatory justice, the court concluded the Crown's ultimate compensation determination of $3.6 billion plus agreed costs was justified in the legal and factual context.

The court therefore declined to intervene in the compensation decision while also addressing allocation issues between federal and provincial Crown responsibility in the reasons.

On a motion panel review, the moving party sought to overturn a single-judge order dismissing his stay and ancillary requests.

The court held the moving party failed to show any error in the finding that the appeal lacked merit and therefore failed to establish entitlement to a stay.

The court also rejected additional relief requested before the panel for lack of legal entitlement and admissible supporting evidence.

Costs were awarded to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $1,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

In a costs-only decision following trial reasons, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $53,000 plus disbursements after partial success on breach of contract and failure on negligent misrepresentation.

The court applied s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and r. 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing reasonableness, proportionality, divided success, and litigation conduct.

Although the plaintiff was nominally successful at trial, the court found the plaintiff recovered only a fraction of its claim, overclaimed legal time, and engaged in concerning conduct, including issues around a purported licence and HST-related purchase price misstatement.

The court held substantial indemnity was unwarranted and ultimately declined to award any costs to the plaintiff.

In an addendum on costs following prior motion reasons, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs payable by the unsuccessful defendants.

The moving party sought substantial indemnity costs of $30,336, while the responding defendants argued for no costs or reduced partial indemnity costs.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, Rule 57.01(1), proportionality, and the fair-and-reasonable standard, the court rejected substantial indemnity as unwarranted in the circumstances.

After considering mixed success, conduct that unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding, and reasonableness of quantum, the court fixed all-inclusive partial indemnity costs at $20,000 payable within 30 days.

A self-represented plaintiff sought damages after municipal enforcement of a property standards order led to demolition of structures and removal of numerous items characterized as refuse and debris.

The court held the Building Code Act order was valid and binding after committee review and non-compliance, and found the municipality had statutory authority to enter and enforce it.

The court found the municipality acted in good faith and with reasonable care, owed no duty to provide a detailed inventory-style accounting of removed refuse, and incurred no civil liability.

Claims against the police services board for failing to intervene or lay charges were also rejected.

The action was dismissed, and the court further held that damages were not proven in any event.

In a costs endorsement following a security-for-costs motion, the court considered competing claims under Rules 49.10 and 49.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The responding parties argued their settlement offers attracted mandatory costs consequences, while the moving party sought full partial-indemnity costs as successful party.

The court held the offers were not equivalent or more favourable than the prior order and therefore did not trigger Rule 49.10, but gave them weight under Rule 49.13.

Given divided success and proportionality, the court reduced the amount claimed and fixed costs payable to the moving party.

On competing motions in a legal malpractice action, the court refused to strike the defendants’ summary judgment motion in its entirety and narrowed the issues suitable for summary adjudication.

The court held that standard of care and certain causation and damages issues could proceed summarily, while broader causation questions tied to unjoined parties would require a trial-within-a-trial analysis.

The court also ruled extensively on evidentiary admissibility, striking specific affidavit paragraphs, exhibits, and will-state statements while allowing other hearsay-limited material for non-truth purposes related to knowledge and retainer scope.

The matter was directed to continue with a focused summary judgment record and a subsequent case management conference.

The defendant moving party sought to set aside a noting in default after failing to deliver a timely notice of intent to defend or statement of defence in a civil action over allegedly erroneous credit-report entries.

Applying rr. 19.03(1) and the discretionary framework in appellate authority, the court emphasized determination on the merits, contextual balancing, and prejudice analysis rather than technical default consequences.

The court found the delay was not significant, was explained by an internal service-date mistake, and was followed by prompt steps to investigate and engage opposing counsel.

The plaintiff filed no affidavit evidence of non-compensable prejudice.

The motion was granted and the noting in default was set aside.

The court determined costs following a prior order declaring the responding party a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) and fairness principles, the court accepted most of the moving party's partial indemnity costs request, including motion, trial, and disbursement components.

The court reduced the pleadings and pre-production component from the amount sought, while finding the remaining claimed amounts fair and reasonable in light of the record and work required.

The responding party's objections were found to be without merit and not responsive to the costs issue.

The court fixed total costs at $29,951.49, inclusive of disbursements and applicable HST, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff leasing company sued a co-lessee for a deficiency balance after a leased vehicle was not returned and was later stolen following two lease extensions.

The defendant argued he had only agreed to support the original lease financially and had not consented to the later extensions, which bore signatures found not to be his.

The court held that the defendant functioned as an accommodation surety and that the lease extensions materially varied the principal contract without his consent.

Under the law governing sureties and the lease’s entire agreement clause, such variations discharged the surety from liability.

The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed and the defendant succeeded on his counterclaim for repayment of funds withdrawn from his account after the original lease term.

At a status hearing, the defendants argued that the action had been deemed dismissed as abandoned under Rule 48.15(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure because no step had been taken between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011.

The plaintiff contended that Rule 48.15 applies only to undefended actions and that the proper rule governing defended actions was Rule 48.14.

The court reviewed the history and purpose of both rules and held that Rule 48.15, including its transition provision in subrule (6), was enacted to address undefended actions that had not progressed.

The court concluded that the rule does not apply to defended actions, which are already governed by the status hearing regime under Rule 48.14.

The action was therefore not deemed dismissed.