Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend defence medical examinations with a neuropsychologist and a psychiatrist, in addition to an agreed-upon physiatry examination.

The plaintiff, who claimed damages for physical, cognitive, and emotional injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident, argued she should only have to attend one of the two disputed examinations.

The court granted the motion, finding that trial fairness required the defendant to have the opportunity to respond to the plaintiff's evidence regarding her physical, emotional, and cognitive impairments.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from the defendant's failure to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant argued the agreement was void due to misrepresentations about conservation authority restrictions and that she was not personally liable because she signed 'in trust' for a corporation.

The court found that the issue of misrepresentation required a trial due to the risk of inconsistent findings with related third-party claims.

However, the court granted partial summary judgment on two discrete issues, finding that the defendant would be personally liable if the agreement is enforceable, and quantifying the plaintiff's damages at $381,984.02.

The plaintiff employee was terminated without cause and the employer refused to pay her contractual two weeks' severance unless she signed a full and final release.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal, arguing the employer repudiated the employment contract and that the termination provisions violated the Employment Standards Act.

The court found that the employer's demand for a release in exchange for contractual entitlements constituted a repudiation of the contract, entitling the plaintiff to common law reasonable notice.

The court awarded 6 months' notice, totaling $16,807.52 in damages.

The applicants sought an interim injunction to restrain the enforcement of the federal government's mandatory hotel quarantine rules for air travellers arriving in Canada, pending a full hearing on the constitutionality of the rules.

The applicants argued the rules violated their Charter rights, including mobility and liberty rights, and caused financial hardship.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a narrow serious issue to be tried under s. 7 of the Charter, the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the government's public health measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and its variants.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to answer questions refused on discovery and for a declaration that the plaintiffs waived solicitor-client privilege over legal advice received from their former counsel.

The defendants argued privilege was waived through the plaintiffs' pleadings of duress, their discovery evidence, and by publicly filing documents in a separate small claims court action against the counsel.

The court held that the plaintiffs did not waive privilege in this action because they did not put the legal advice in issue or rely on it for their claims.

While privilege was waived over the publicly filed documents, those documents were deemed irrelevant to the current action.

The court also ruled on several other discovery refusals, upholding some and ordering answers or redactions for others.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to remove the defendant MVAC's counsel of record from the tort claim.

The counsel was acting for MVAC in both the accident benefits claim and the tort claim.

After initially accepting the plaintiff's catastrophic impairment designation, the counsel abruptly reversed the decision hours later without explanation.

The court found that a reasonably informed onlooker would perceive a possibility of conflict and misuse of information, warranting the disqualification of counsel to maintain the integrity of the administration of justice.

The plaintiff property developer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to compel the defendant purchasers to vacate a condominium townhouse and prevent their re-entry.

The defendants had taken interim occupancy but failed to close the transaction, refused to sign extension agreements, made unauthorized alterations to the unit, and engaged in abusive and harassing behaviour toward the plaintiff's staff.

The court granted the mandatory injunction, finding the defendants were trespassers, the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case, and the plaintiff was suffering irreparable harm to its property rights and reputation.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident personal injury action moved to strike the defendants' jury notice due to the suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants cross-moved to adjourn the trial to conduct defence medical examinations and obtain expert reports.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion and struck the jury notice, finding that the plaintiff would suffer non-compensable prejudice from trial delay due to statutory deductibles and income loss limits under the Insurance Act.

The court dismissed the defendants' cross-motion, holding that their lack of trial readiness was due to their own failure to diligently seek medical examinations and expert reports.

The plaintiff passenger sued the defendant driver for negligence after their motorcycle collided with a deer in Wisconsin.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the collision was an inevitable accident.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the defendant's negligence due to his speed, lack of proper eyewear in the rain, and distraction.

Using its expanded fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04(2.1), the court determined the defendant was negligent, leaving damages to be assessed at trial.

The applicant church sought $75,000 in costs after being unsuccessful on an urgent application for an interim injunction to stay COVID-19 restrictions on in-person religious services.

The church argued costs were warranted because the case raised a novel issue of significant public importance.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the injunction application focused on the narrow interests of the church rather than broad public interest, and turned on settled legal principles rather than novel issues.

No costs were awarded to either party for the injunction application.

The parties in a complex construction dispute involving multiple actions and counterclaims submitted a consent Discovery Plan to the case management judge.

The court ordered that the Discovery Plan, which sets out key dates for the exchange of affidavits of documents, virtual examinations for discovery, and detailed e-discovery protocols including search terms and metadata load file requirements, applies to the proceeding.

The applicant brought an application for a declaration that a charge registered on a property was void as a fraudulent conveyance.

At a case conference, the respondents argued the matter should proceed as a trial of an issue due to factual disputes and credibility issues.

The court directed that the matter proceed by way of application, noting that the presiding judge could still order a trial of an issue under Rule 38.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants brought separate motions to strike the plaintiffs' claim under Rule 21.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of one defendant's motion because they had a pending motion for leave to amend the statement of claim.

The court granted the adjournment, finding no prejudice to the defendants and noting that proceeding with a motion to strike while a motion to amend is pending would be inefficient.

Both motions to strike were adjourned to be heard together, with costs thrown away awarded to one defendant.

The defendants brought separate motions to strike the plaintiffs' action under Rule 21.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the motions because they had a pending motion for leave to amend the statement of claim.

The court granted the adjournment, finding that it would be inefficient to proceed with the motions to strike before the motion to amend was decided.

Both motions were adjourned to be heard together, with costs thrown away awarded to one of the defendants.

A case management conference was held regarding two actions brought by a self-represented plaintiff, who also purported to act as litigation guardian for another plaintiff.

The plaintiff failed to attend the conference but sent a letter indicating his intention to withdraw both actions.

Due to ongoing concerns regarding the plaintiff's capacity and the involvement of a party under disability, the court directed the defendants to bring motions to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian and to seek court approval for the settlement or withdrawal of the actions.

The plaintiff solar energy company brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant homeowners for breach of a 20-year Solar Development Lease Agreement.

The defendants had terminated the agreement and redirected revenue payments to themselves after the plaintiff refused to pay the registration costs for postponing its security interest to allow the defendants to refinance their property.

The court found that the plaintiff had no obligation to pay the postponement costs and that the defendants breached the agreement by diverting the revenue.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff, with a reference ordered to determine the quantum of damages.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants Isaify Inc. and Ali Imran Zaffar, seeking to hold them jointly and severally liable for a default judgment previously obtained against other defendants in the amount of $361,062.10.

The plaintiff alleged that Zaffar and Isaify participated in a fraudulent scheme by misrepresenting the financial health of a business partner and allowing their bank accounts to be used to divert funds from creditors.

The court found that the defendants' conduct amounted to fraud, as they knowingly misled the plaintiff and induced it into entering transactions that resulted in financial loss.

The court held that the defendants were bound by the default judgment and ordered them jointly and severally liable for the damages.

The appellants sought leave to appeal an arbitration award that upheld a condominium rule prohibiting the retail sale of cannabis from their commercial units.

The appellants argued the arbitrator erred in law by finding the rule consistent with the condominium declaration and by validating certain proxies used to pass the rule.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion for leave, concluding the alleged errors were questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law as required under section 45 of the Arbitration Act.

However, the court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to grant a temporary extension for the appellants to wind down their business and dispose of perishable inventory.