Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The defendant, Mohammed Ghandehari, brought a motion for security for costs and for an order requiring the plaintiff, Gobinath Papiah, to attend an in-person defence medical examination in Toronto, with the plaintiff to pay his own travel and accommodation expenses.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs due to the defendant's delay in bringing the motion and the fact that India is a reciprocating jurisdiction for costs orders.

The court ordered the in-person medical examination but required the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s reasonable costs of attending.

The plaintiff was awarded $1,500 in costs for the motion.

The decision addresses a motion by Robyn Lynn Minifie for disclosure and production of documents from the Diocese’s investigation into allegations of sexual assault by Lawrence Paquette.

The court orders the Diocese to provide particulars of the investigation documents and affirms that a pre-trial conference brief is settlement privileged, requiring its destruction and removal from the court file.

The ruling clarifies the scope of settlement privilege and the process for challenging privilege claims in civil litigation.

The court addressed two motions: one to remove counsel for the Estate and Mr. Mylabathula due to a conflict of interest and the likelihood of becoming a witness, and another to strike the counterclaim brought by the Estate and Mr. Mylabathula against RBC and its counsel, Mr. Bowden.

The court ordered the removal of counsel, Mr. Callahan, finding he would inevitably be a witness regarding Mr. Mylabathula's knowledge of costs orders.

The counterclaim by the Estate was struck without leave to amend due to limitations and the inability of an estate to pursue defamation claims.

Mr. Mylabathula's counterclaim against Mr. Bowden was struck without leave due to absolute privilege and abuse of process.

Mr. Mylabathula's counterclaim against RBC was struck with limited leave to amend, requiring proper pleading of tort elements and a connection for discrimination claims.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty, knowing assistance, and knowing receipt against investment advisors and their associated companies.

The claims arose from the defendants' recommendation of investments in Invoice Payment System Corporation (IPS), a company in which the advisors had a significant undisclosed ownership stake and from which they received commissions.

While the Court of Appeal had previously found the pleadings disclosed a cause of action for a class-wide fiduciary duty, this court dismissed the certification motion.

The court found that the proposed common issues regarding the existence, nature, and breach of a class-wide fiduciary duty could not be determined in common across the class, as individual inquiries into each client's specific circumstances, level of trust, reliance, and understanding of disclosures were necessary.

Consequently, the claims for knowing receipt, knowing assistance, and remedies also failed the certification test.

This appeal concerned the quantum of class counsel fees and a representative plaintiff honorarium following a $153 million class action settlement for unpaid overtime.

The motion judge had awarded $25 million in fees and denied a $30,000 honorarium.

The appellants sought an increase in fees to $44 million and the honorarium.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's discretionary decision on both fees and honorarium, finding no palpable and overriding error or misdirection on law.

The plaintiff sued her dentist for negligence and lack of informed consent following a wisdom tooth extraction that led to a severe facial space infection.

The plaintiff alleged the dentist failed to meet the standard of care by not taking updated X-rays, injecting local anesthetic near the infection, not referring her to a specialist, and not extracting an opposing tooth.

The court found that the plaintiff provided informed consent and that the dentist met the standard of care.

The court accepted expert evidence that the infection was brewing prior to the extraction and that the extraction likely mitigated its course.

The claim was dismissed.

This is a securities class action where the Plaintiff sought approval of a settlement with the Tetra Tech Defendants and pre-settlement orders for a proposed settlement with the Gatos Defendants.

The court approved the C$1,000,000 settlement with the Tetra Tech Defendants, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

For the Gatos Defendants, the court granted leave to proceed under section 138.8 of the Securities Act, certified the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes, and approved the proposed notice plan and ancillary orders, paving the way for a future US$3,000,000 settlement approval motion.

The appellant, a Markham city councillor, appealed the dismissal of her anti-SLAPP motion (pursuant to s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act) against an action brought by a developer.

The developer's action alleged defamation and other torts arising from the councillor's opposition to a development and her report to the police regarding an incident with the developer.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by adopting an overly narrow interpretation of "expression relating to a matter of public interest" and by conflating the stages of the s. 137.1 test.

The Court clarified that reporting concerns to the police and a city councillor's actions related to their public duties are matters of public interest, warranting a broad interpretation at the initial stage of the anti-SLAPP analysis.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to a different judge to consider the second stage of the s. 137.1 test.

This is Part 7 of a joint decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec concerning multi-jurisdictional class actions (Brazeau, Reddock, Gallone).

The decision addresses a consensual motion by the parties to streamline the payment process for "Track 2, Box 1 only Claims" under the previously approved Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The courts approved an order confirming that payments to class members, class counsel, and the Class Proceedings Fund will be made periodically (every 75 days after a cut-off date) without requiring further motions for confirmation, thereby enhancing judicial economy and access to justice.

The appellant, a landlord, appealed a trial judgment that found it liable for conversion of chattels belonging to its former tenant's chattel mortgagee (the respondent).

The trial judge awarded compensatory damages based on the chattels' market value and punitive damages.

The appellant argued the compensatory damages should have been limited to the outstanding chattel mortgage balance, claiming an ownership interest in the abandoned chattels, and that punitive damages were unwarranted or excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's ownership argument was a new theory not raised at trial and was contradicted by evidence.

The court affirmed that market value was the appropriate measure of damages for conversion and upheld the punitive damages award as a rational response to the appellant's high-handed conduct.

The appellant, Professional Court Reporters Inc. (PCR), appealed a summary judgment decision concerning a sublease default by the respondents, Pistachio Financier Corp. and Real Crowd Capital Inc. o/a R2.

PCR sought damages for lost profit, post-judgment interest at a contractual rate, and costs on a higher scale, all of which were denied or limited by the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision to deny lost profits, finding insufficient evidence to establish a loss.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding post-judgment interest and costs, ruling that contractual terms for interest and costs should be enforced absent exceptional circumstances, which were not present.

The appellant, The Catalyst Capital Group Inc., appealed an order striking its claim for misfeasance in public office against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (HMQ) without leave to amend.

Catalyst alleged HMQ improperly caused its removal as a participant in the Pan Am Athletes’ Village Project.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, finding that Catalyst's pleadings, despite being extensive, lacked sufficient material facts to plausibly support the required element of bad faith or unlawful conduct for the tort of misfeasance in public office.

The court reiterated that bald allegations of bad faith are insufficient without factual underpinning.

The appellants, Subway, appealed the dismissal of their $210 million defamation action against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) under an anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

The action arose from a CBC Marketplace report alleging Subway's chicken products contained only 50% chicken DNA.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in applying a higher standard for the "no valid defence" test and in weighing the public interest.

The Court determined that Subway had established grounds to believe CBC had no valid defence of responsible communication and that the public interest in allowing the action to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression, given the significant reputational and financial harm alleged and the lack of urgency in disseminating unverified information.

The appeal was allowed, and the defamation action against CBC was permitted to continue.

The defendants, a law firm and lawyer, brought a motion to temporarily stay a negligence action against them.

The plaintiffs, estate trustees, had sued the defendants for allegedly negligent advice regarding a share transfer to a charitable foundation, which led to a significant tax liability after a Canada Revenue Agency reassessment.

The plaintiffs had also appealed this reassessment to the Tax Court of Canada.

The court granted the temporary stay, finding a substantial overlap of issues and factual background between the negligence action and the tax appeal.

It concluded that the outcome of the tax appeal would significantly influence, if not be determinative of, the negligence claim, and that a stay would avoid unnecessary and costly duplication of judicial and legal resources without causing significant prejudice to the plaintiffs' access to justice.

The plaintiffs moved to set aside a Registrar's administrative dismissal for delay of their action against the defendant law corporation for lawyer's negligence.

The action, commenced in 2013, was dismissed in 2018 for failure to set it down for trial within five years, as required by Rule 48.14.

The court applied a contextual approach to the four-factor test for setting aside such dismissals, considering the plaintiffs' explanation for delay (inadvertence due to staff changes and maternity leave), their intent to prosecute, and the defendant's claim of prejudice (aging principal, health issues, memory deterioration).

The court found that both parties shared responsibility for the delay and, balancing the interests, decided to restore the action to active status with a strict new timetable for setting down for trial, with no costs awarded.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his action for damages arising from an alleged unlawful arrest on October 14, 2006.

The appellant claimed the trial judge erred in finding he was intoxicated, belligerent and aggressive, and that the arrest was without cause.

The appellant also argued the trial judge failed to properly consider the effect of his acquittal on criminal charges.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding the trial judge's factual findings were supported by evidence and his legal conclusions regarding the elements of causing a disturbance were correct.

The court also confirmed that an acquittal on criminal charges does not preclude a finding of unlawful arrest in civil proceedings due to different parties and burdens of proof.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their negligence action on summary judgment motions brought by the respondents.

The plaintiff was assaulted after exiting a chartered bus at a plaza in Barrie, sustaining a serious head injury.

The respondents operated a bar with a transportation and security system designed to prevent violence.

The motions judge found the case suitable for summary judgment and held that the respondents met the applicable standard of care.

The Court of Appeal found that the motions judge failed to properly articulate and apply the standard of care, effectively treating the plaintiff's contributory negligence as a bar to the claim.

The court held that the respondents owed a duty not to place the plaintiff in a position where foreseeable injury could occur, and that a trial was necessary to properly assess the standard of care and causation.

The appellant, Western Troy Capital Resources Inc., retained the respondent, Genivar Inc., an engineering consulting firm, to conduct a feasibility study for a mineral property at MacLeod Lake in Northern Quebec.

The trial judge found that Genivar breached its duty of care and made negligent misrepresentations, awarding damages of $1.25 million.

On appeal, Western Troy sought to increase the award to approximately $2.97 million or $2.15 million, arguing the trial judge failed to adequately explain his damages assessment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's award, finding it was firmly grounded in evidence and that the trial judge properly considered speculative elements including the timing of when the resources estimate should have been completed, which expenses would have been incurred regardless, and the likely reaction of Western Troy's management to a timely report.

The plaintiff, Yunsheng Du, sought damages from Jameson Bank after unauthorized wire transfers occurred due to his email account being hacked.

Jameson Bank moved for summary judgment, arguing it acted in accordance with the account agreement, which placed responsibility for email security on Du and contained an exclusion of liability clause for anything less than gross negligence or wilful misconduct.

Du also sought to amend his claim to add new causes of action and parties.

The court dismissed Du's proposed amendments for oppression remedy and breach of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, finding them untenable.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Jameson Bank, concluding that the contractual terms barred Du's claims for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, negligence, gross negligence, and conversion, as Du failed to secure his email account and Jameson Bank had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the instructions.

The defendants moved for summary judgment in multiple consolidated medical malpractice actions, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs contended that their claims were only discovered after a 2011 press release and media coverage regarding allegations against Dr. Frank.

The court applied the objective discoverability test, finding that the plaintiffs were aware, or ought to have been aware, of the material facts giving rise to their claims well before the press release.

The information from the press release did not provide new material facts related to their individual care but rather served as evidence to support existing allegations.

Consequently, the court determined that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate due diligence in discovering their claims, and thus, their actions were statute-barred.