Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a representation order under Rule 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to appoint Chief Kirby Whiteduck to represent the 'Algonquins' in an action challenging Ontario's decision to grant harvesting rights to two Métis communities in a settlement area currently under treaty negotiation.

The Métis Nation opposed the motion, arguing the class was insufficiently defined and the proposed representative lacked authority.

The court found that the class of collective rights holders was sufficiently defined, the claim was collective in nature, and the balance of convenience favoured appointing the proposed representative.

The motion was granted.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for default judgment against the corporate tenant and its president, as personal indemnifier, after the tenant abandoned the commercial premises and defaulted on rent and arrears payments.

The defendants were noted in default.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff was entitled to damages for rent arrears, accelerated rent, and lost future rent, without reduction for failure to mitigate, as the plaintiff's efforts to re-lease the premises were reasonable.

The court also awarded pre-judgment interest and full indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs, who suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident, brought a motion to strike the jury notice due to the suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to adjourn the trial because the pandemic interfered with their ability to obtain responding medical reports.

The court granted the adjournment for six months to allow the defendants to obtain their medical assessments.

However, the court also struck the jury notice, finding that the indefinite delay of jury trials would cause undue financial prejudice to the plaintiffs, whose accident benefits were nearly exhausted.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to serve a responding expert report regarding future care costs after the court-ordered deadline had passed.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing prejudice and undue delay.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate prejudice, as the trial had already been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the court ordered the defendants to pay costs of $2,000 to the plaintiffs due to their cavalier attitude toward court orders.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused at the defendant's examination for discovery, to compel production of documents, and for leave to amend the statement of claim in a motor vehicle accident action.

The court ordered the defendant to disclose particulars of surveillance evidence before the plaintiff's examination, produce a redacted accident benefits application, and re-attend discovery regarding his opiate use.

The court also granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim to include allegations of impaired driving, punitive damages, and breaches of statutory settlement duties.

The plaintiffs in a proposed securities class action brought a motion for approval of a third-party Adverse Costs Indemnity and Funding Agreement with Camac Partners LLC.

The agreement provided up to $800,000 in adverse costs indemnity and $125,000 in disbursement funding in exchange for 10% of the net recovery, capped at $4 million.

The defendants did not oppose the motion.

The court approved the agreement, finding its terms fair, reasonable, and necessary to provide access to justice for the plaintiffs and the proposed class.

The defendant property owner moved under Rule 45.02 for an order requiring her co-defendant, a second mortgagee who sold the property under a power of sale, to pay a portion of the sale proceeds into court.

The moving party alleged the mortgagee breached its duties by selling the property at an improvident price.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the moving party claimed a right to a specific fund, she failed to establish a serious issue to be tried regarding the mortgagee's conduct, and the balance of convenience favoured the mortgagee given the undisputed mortgage debt.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the approval of a settlement in three consolidated class actions against three immigration lawyers for professional negligence.

The class members were Roma refugee claimants from Hungary whose applications failed or did not proceed while represented by the defendants.

The court approved the settlement of $500,000 in damages and $50,000 in costs, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $181,500 and a $2,500 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent ex-parte motion for Mareva, Anton Piller, and Certificate of Pending Litigation orders against the defendants, alleging a multi-million dollar investment fraud.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and a significant risk of asset dissipation.

The court granted all three orders, finding the respective tests were met, and scheduled a return date for the parties to report back.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing and without notice seeking an order to compel the court to release the audio and video recording of a prior motion hearing to an authorized court transcriptionist.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that under the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction, digital recordings of civil motions are not available.

The court also noted that the prior hearing involved a publication ban protecting minor defendants, and there was no justification to risk further disclosure by releasing the recording.

At a case conference, the Varone Parties sought compliance with a previous discovery plan order made by Master Muir, which the Concord Adex Parties had failed to meet.

The court ordered the Concord Adex Parties to serve their Affidavit of Documents within 10 days and varied the litigation timetable accordingly.

The court also provided directions on how to address an undetermined costs issue from the previous motion, as Master Muir had passed away before rendering his decision on costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant's representative to answer a refused question from an examination for discovery.

The underlying action involved allegations of negligent repair of an ATV.

The refused question asked the representative to agree that if the threads on the axle were intact, the only way the tire could come off was if the cotter pin was missing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the question improperly sought an expert opinion on a hypothetical matter from a layperson.

The moving party (respondent in the main proceeding) sought an adjournment of his own motion because the counsel working on the file had left the firm and new counsel was not ready.

The court granted the adjournment on terms, setting a peremptory return date and prohibiting the filing of further materials other than authorities.

The court awarded the responding party $4,500 in costs thrown away, payable within 30 days, failing which the responding party could move to dismiss the motion.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the defendants on a guarantee given as part of a settlement agreement.

The corporate debtor defaulted on the settlement payment schedule, prompting the plaintiff to enforce the guarantee against the defendants.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered the defendants to pay the principal sum of $90,000.

The court also applied section 4 of the Interest Act to limit the interest rate to 5% per annum, as the guarantee did not express an equivalent yearly rate.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking the production of additional documents from the defendants in an action alleging fraudulent accident benefit claims.

The requested documents included law firm financial records and other business records.

The court ordered the production of certain client files and records on consent but denied the request for broader banking and business records, finding them overly broad, disproportionate, and premature prior to establishing liability.

Following a decision where the defendants' cross-motion to stay the plaintiff law firm's action pending an assessment of accounts was granted, both parties sought costs.

The defendants claimed $9,553.98 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff claimed $24,611.67 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found that there was divided success and that both sides had taken disproportionate and inappropriate steps in the litigation.

Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs.

The plaintiff, a real estate developer, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser who failed to close a real estate transaction.

After the defendant failed to file responding materials as ordered, the court struck the statement of defence and treated the matter as an in-writing motion for default judgment.

The court found the plaintiff proved its claim for breach of contract and awarded damages for the loss of the bargain and consequential carrying costs.

Following a successful motion to strike claims against an individual defendant without leave to amend, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court awarded the individual defendant substantial indemnity costs for defending the action, as the plaintiff had made bare allegations of fraud based solely on his ownership of the corporate defendant.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs for the pleadings motion itself, finding no reason to apply a punitive scale to a normal interlocutory motion.

The plaintiff sub-subcontractor moved for summary judgment on its construction lien claim against the defendant subcontractor.

The defendant cross-moved to withdraw a prior admission regarding the quantum of the lien and to amend its defence to claim set-offs for deficiencies alleged by the general contractor, as well as relying on a 'pay-when-paid' clause.

The court granted the defendant leave to withdraw the admission and amend its defence.

The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, fixing the quantum of the lien at $414,049.99, but directed a trial on the issue of whether the 'pay-when-paid' clause was agreed to and enforceable.