Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The plaintiff manufacturer sued the defendant metal processing company for the unpaid balance and extras on a contract for a custom Tension Leveling & Cut-To-Length Line.

The defendant counterclaimed for lost profits, alleging the machine failed to produce flat, memory-free sheets and could not process heavy gauge coils.

The court found that the defendant breached the contract by prematurely terminating the final acceptance testing, which was a condition precedent, thereby denying the plaintiff the opportunity to remedy any defects.

The plaintiff was awarded the contract balance and partial payment for extras, and the counterclaim was dismissed.

The applicant insurer sought a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify the insured under a homeowner's policy for a third-party claim arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The underlying claim alleged the insured negligently operated his vehicle and also exited his vehicle to threaten the other driver.

The respondent automobile insurer argued the homeowner's policy might cover the threatening behaviour.

The court held that the insured's actions after exiting the vehicle were incident to the use or operation of a motor vehicle, and therefore fell within the homeowner's policy exclusion for claims arising from the ownership, use, or operation of a motorized vehicle.

The declaration was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against Toyota for settlement purposes regarding defective Takata airbag inflators.

The court reviewed the five-part test under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, noting that the criteria may be less rigorously applied in a settlement context.

Finding that all criteria were satisfied, the court granted the motion, certified the action for settlement purposes, and approved the notice plan and appointment of administrators.

The plaintiff, a solar power installation company, sued the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) for misfeasance in public office.

The plaintiff alleged that the OPA unlawfully amended the microFIT Program rules without providing the required 90 days' notice, intentionally causing harm to the plaintiff's business.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the OPA did not engage in deliberate unlawful conduct or act with bad faith.

The court held that the OPA acted in good faith to balance ratepayer interests and implement Ministerial directives regarding renewable energy procurement.

Although the court assessed potential damages at $470,250, no liability was found.

The applicants obtained a default judgment against their former lawyer for missing limitation periods in their personal injury claims.

They sought to garnishee the lawyer's professional liability insurance policy with LawPro.

LawPro had denied coverage because the lawyer completely failed to report the claim or cooperate in its defence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that LawPro's denial of coverage was appropriate due to the lawyer's fundamental breach of the policy's cooperation condition.

Relief from forfeiture was unavailable, and public policy did not require LawPro to operate as a no-fault insurer.

Following a summary judgment decision where the plaintiff was declared the beneficial owner of a disputed property, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought full or substantial indemnity costs, while the defendant argued for partial indemnity costs apportioned against the plaintiff due to divided success.

The court found the plaintiff was substantially more successful, having achieved his primary goals of retaining the family home and avoiding capital gains tax indemnification.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $25,988, discounted slightly for his unsuccessful punitive damages claim.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against CIBC Mortgages Inc. regarding the calculation of prepayment penalties on residential mortgages.

The plaintiffs alleged that the prepayment penalty clauses were illegal, contrary to public policy, unconscionable, and void for uncertainty, and that the defendant miscalculated the penalties by failing to apply a present value discount and using a shortened amortization period.

The court found that the pleadings did not disclose causes of action for illegality, unconscionability (as pleaded), uncertainty, or failure to apply a present value discount.

However, the court found a valid cause of action regarding the use of a shortened amortization period and certified the action as a class proceeding on that narrowed basis.

The Statutory Third Party sought costs thrown away after a trial was adjourned due to the late delivery of expert reports.

The court found that both parties failed to agree to a schedule for expert reports as required by Rule 53.03(2.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

However, the plaintiff's late delivery of reports ultimately necessitated the adjournment.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $2,900 in costs thrown away to the Statutory Third Party.

The Canadian respondents brought a motion to set aside an ex parte Mareva injunction that froze their assets worldwide.

They argued the injunction should be set aside due to material non-disclosure by the applicants and insufficient evidence of their involvement in the alleged $71.7 million fraud or risk of dissipation.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside, finding no material non-disclosure and sufficient evidence of knowing receipt of misappropriated funds and risk of dissipation.

However, the court varied the order to release funds for the respondents' living and legal expenses.

The court also granted a sealing order over the transcripts of the respondents' compelled examinations to protect their rights against self-incrimination in light of a criminal investigation in Iran.

The respondents' request for security for the applicants' undertaking as to damages was denied.

The Crown brought an application seeking a finding of civil contempt against the CBC and Post Media for allegedly breaching publication bans issued in a criminal proceeding.

The media outlets had published articles about related family court proceedings which the Crown argued, when read with prior reporting, could identify the victims (the 'mosaic effect').

The Superior Court found it had inherent jurisdiction to hear the application and that proceeding by application was appropriate.

However, the court dismissed the contempt application, finding that the publication ban was not sufficiently clear due to a confusing warning issued in the family court proceedings.

The court also declined to grant declaratory relief, finding it would have no practical utility.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against a general practitioner and a specialist surgeon following complications from bowel surgery that resulted in a severe necrotizing soft tissue infection.

The plaintiffs alleged the specialist failed to follow up on PET scan results and the general practitioner failed to accurately communicate those results.

The court found that while the specialist breached the standard of care by failing to follow up, the plaintiffs failed to establish causation, as the patient's history of seeking alternative treatments and rejecting medical advice indicated he would not have complied with the recommended treatment plan.

The court found the general practitioner met the standard of care.

The action was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application for a declaration regarding a licensing agreement, the successful respondent sought costs of $97,696.78 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued the costs were excessive and suggested $65,000.

The court rejected the applicants' argument that hours spent on moot issues should be excluded, noting the issues only became moot after the fact.

The court fixed costs at $80,000 all inclusive, finding it to be a fair and reasonable amount.

Following the dismissal of the defendant physicians' summary judgment motion based on the expiry of the limitation period, the court determined costs.

The defendants argued for divided success because the plaintiff had invited the court to grant summary judgment in her favour on the limitation issue.

The court rejected this, finding the plaintiff was entirely successful in resisting the motion.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $25,000 to the plaintiff and $10,000 to the intervenor (the plaintiff's former lawyers), noting that while the moving parties should not be saddled with double costs, the intervenor was entitled to a modest award.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision ordering them to pay $1,000 plus costs, and brought a motion for leave to have the application heard by the Superior Court of Justice due to urgency.

The court granted leave based on the applicants' significant health issues.

However, the court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that it was an inappropriate attempt to circumvent the statutory prohibition on appealing Small Claims Court decisions under $2,500.

The applicant, a person under disability, sought court approval for a $225,000 all-inclusive tort settlement arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court approved the settlement amount as being in the applicant's best interests, given the difficulty in proving causation for a subsequent brain aneurysm.

However, the court found the proposed legal fees of $52,585.35 to be excessive given the lack of complexity and time dockets, reducing the approved fees to $40,000 plus HST, thereby increasing the net recovery for the applicant.

The plaintiff pedestrian was struck and severely injured by a stolen motor vehicle.

Her spouse was employed as a delivery driver and had a company van available for his regular use during business hours.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to determine whether the employer's automobile insurance policy, which included an OPCF 44R Family Protection Change Form, provided excess coverage for the injuries.

The court found that because the employer's shop was open and the van was available for the spouse's use at the time of the accident, the policy provided coverage, even though the spouse was not yet at work or using the vehicle when the accident occurred.

The plaintiff corporation brought an action for solicitor negligence against the defendant lawyer and his firm, alleging they owed and breached duties to the plaintiff in relation to a 2010 real estate transaction, causing the plaintiff to lose financing it had extended.

The transaction involved mortgage fraud perpetrated by the purchaser and his partner.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendant lawyer did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, either through a solicitor-client relationship or as an exceptional duty to a non-client third party, as there was no retainer, no instructions, and no reasonable reliance by the plaintiff on the lawyer.

The moving parties brought a motion to extend the time to oppose the confirmation of an assessment officer's report and to set it aside.

They had failed to attend the assessment hearing, claiming they misunderstood the purpose of a prior adjournment.

The court found their excuse weak but noted they acted promptly upon learning of the assessment.

Because there was a genuine issue regarding whether the moving parties had actually retained the respondent law firm prior to signing a written retainer, the court set aside the unopposed certificate of assessment and remitted the matter back to the Assessment Officer.

The moving parties were ordered to pay $5,000 in costs due to their default.