Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The plaintiff, a lawyer, brought a defamation action against the defendant, a former law partner and opposing counsel, over an article published in an insurance adjusters' magazine.

The article accused the plaintiff of making false representations during a pretrial conference, based on a lower court decision that was later overturned on appeal.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and the defendant moved to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the action, finding that while the claim had substantial merit, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant had no valid defence, as the defence of qualified privilege was legally tenable and required a trial to determine if it was defeated by malice.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an extension of time to set the action down for trial and a timetable for remaining pre-trial steps.

The action involved claims of unlawful arrest and assault against police officers.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the delay caused actual prejudice due to weakened memories.

The court found the plaintiff provided an adequate explanation for the delay, which was largely due to multiple changes in counsel and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants, as they had contemporaneous notes and statements, and had passively acquiesced to the delay.

The motion was granted, and the time to set the action down for trial was extended.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment based on the expiry of the limitation period just two weeks before a scheduled jury trial.

The plaintiff had suffered a concussion but argued she did not discover the cause of her symptoms until months later, after ruling out a brain tumour.

The court declined to decide the motion, finding that assessing the reasonableness of the plaintiff's discoverability required a proper evidentiary base, including cross-examinations, which was not feasible so close to trial.

The motion was adjourned to the trial judge.

The defendant, a real estate lawyer, brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel of record.

The defendant argued that he had previously consulted the plaintiff's counsel regarding the very mortgage transactions at issue in the litigation, imparting confidential information.

Furthermore, the defendant argued that the plaintiff's counsel would likely be a necessary witness at trial regarding the plaintiff's efforts to mitigate damages in a related mortgage enforcement action.

The court applied the MacDonald Estate test for conflicts of interest and the Essa factors for lawyers as witnesses.

The court found that the plaintiff's counsel had a disqualifying conflict of interest and was also likely to be a witness at trial.

The motion to remove counsel was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend her statement of claim to withdraw an admission that she had not applied for long-term disability benefits and to add a claim for relief from forfeiture.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing the amendments sought to add new causes of action that were statute-barred.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to meet the test to withdraw an admission under Rule 51.05 and that the proposed amendments constituted new claims outside the limitation period.

The plaintiff, an elderly pedestrian, was struck by a city bus and sustained injuries.

On the eve of trial, the plaintiff accepted a $25,000 settlement due to her declining health, with costs to be agreed or assessed.

The plaintiff sought over $124,000 in costs, while the defendants argued for $10,000 based on proportionality.

The court fixed costs at $96,780.93 on a partial indemnity basis, finding that the defendants' late admission of liability and the necessity of expert reports justified a costs award exceeding the settlement amount.

The plaintiff's counsel sought court approval of a solicitor and client account based on a 30% contingency fee agreement following a $200,000 settlement with the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

The court found the contingency fee agreement was not fair or reasonable, noting the lack of complexity, the limited time docketed compared to the proposed fee, and the absence of evidence that the plaintiff was advised of the limited recovery available from the Fund.

The court deemed the agreement unenforceable and reduced the approved fee to $30,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action brought a motion for a declaration that the defendants were contractually precluded from opposing his motion for leave to appeal a decision denying class certification.

The parties had previously entered into a Litigation and Mediation Process Agreement which stated that no party would oppose a motion for leave to appeal an order disposing of all or a portion of the claim.

The court interpreted the agreement and found that the certification decision disposed of a portion of the claim, meaning the defendants were bound by their agreement not to oppose the leave to appeal motion.

The defendant brought a summary judgment motion to vacate or discharge the plaintiff's claim for lien, or alternatively to reduce the amount of security posted.

The court found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the contract price and the date the plaintiff last performed work on the project.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not permit a fair and just determination of these issues without a trial, as there were serious credibility issues and conflicting evidence.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs (purchasers) brought a motion for summary judgment for the return of their $60,000 deposit after an abortive real estate transaction, and for the dismissal of the defendant vendor's counterclaim for breach of contract.

The agreement of purchase and sale was conditional on financing and review of a status certificate.

The conditions were not waived in writing by the deadline, rendering the agreement null and void.

The vendor argued the purchasers waived the conditions by their conduct.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the conditions were not waived and the purchasers made no misrepresentations.

The deposit was ordered returned and the counterclaim dismissed.

The self-represented defendant brought a motion to set aside two certificates of judgment and declare the assignment of the judgment from the original plaintiff to its successor invalid.

The court found that an order to continue was not required post-judgment and that the defendant's challenge to the assignment was a collateral attack on prior decisions of the Superior Court and Court of Appeal.

The court also held that the issuance of certificates of judgment is a purely administrative function, and there was no basis to set them aside.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought default judgment against the defendants for injuries sustained in a slip and fall on ice at the premises where he rented a room.

The defendants were noted in default after failing to defend the action.

The court found the defendants owed a duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act and their negligence caused the plaintiff's broken hip.

The court awarded the plaintiff $80,000 in general damages, $10,000 for future care costs, the OHIP subrogated claim, and costs.

The parties were unable to agree on costs following a motion where the plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their statement of claim to increase damages and ordered the defendant to answer undertakings, but the balance of the motion was dismissed.

The court found that the defendant was the overall successful party as the plaintiffs were unsuccessful on the most contentious issues.

Taking into account the divided success and the late stage at which the motion was brought, the court awarded the defendant costs of $8,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff was successful on an appeal of an interlocutory order and sought costs.

The plaintiff requested partial indemnity costs for the original motion and substantial indemnity costs for the appeal, citing the defendants' aggressive threats against the plaintiff's counsel and procedural misconduct.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that no costs should be awarded.

Applying the principle that substantial indemnity costs are justified by reprehensible conduct, the court awarded the plaintiff its full requested costs of $11,856.33.

The applicants (Sellers) and respondents (Purchasers) disputed the process for valuing shares under a shareholders agreement following the termination of the Sellers' employment.

The Sellers applied to appoint their preferred arbitrator and argued for a full arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The Purchasers cross-applied to appoint their preferred arbitrator, seeking a streamlined valuation process and a court declaration on the valuation date.

The court held that the agreement contemplated a formal arbitration under the Act, not merely a valuation.

The court declined to determine the valuation date, leaving it to the arbitrator under the competence-competence principle, and ordered the parties to select a neutral third-party arbitrator.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion to exclude emails between himself and his lawyer from the defendant's affidavit of documents.

The emails were sent using the plaintiff's corporate email account.

The court found that the plaintiff, who was the founder and former CEO of the company, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his corporate email account, as he had used it for personal matters for over 20 years without a written policy prohibiting such use.

The court held that the emails were protected by solicitor-client privilege and ordered their removal from the affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce restrictive covenants against a former sales consultant who allegedly used confidential information to start a competing business.

An interim injunction was already in place on consent.

The court dismissed the application for an expanded interlocutory injunction, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case for relief beyond the existing interim terms, which already enforced the substance of the restrictive covenants.

In a medical malpractice trial against a single defendant neurologist for delayed diagnosis, the parties disagreed on the formulation of jury questions regarding causation and damages.

The trial judge ruled that the causation question must use the 'but for' test rather than 'caused or contributed', as the latter could confuse the jury in a single-defendant case.

The judge also ordered the jury to provide reasons for its finding on causation to ensure a rational analysis.

On damages, the judge ruled that mitigation and collateral benefits should be addressed in jury instructions rather than separate questions.

Finally, the judge removed the Estate's claim for past value of care from the jury due to insufficient evidence, but allowed the claim for past value of loss of housekeeping to proceed.