Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The plaintiff and defendants were partners in a real estate business.

Following the termination of the partnership, the plaintiff brought an application for an injunction, alleging that the defendants breached their duties as partners by locking her out of accounts and making misleading social media posts about the business.

The court granted an interim injunction pending an adjournment for cross-examinations, ordering the defendants to cease using the partnership name and to post an agreed message concerning the dissolution.

Following a successful application to enforce an arbitral award requiring a unit owner to replace defective Kitec pipes, the condominium corporation sought full indemnity costs.

The court rejected the argument that the condominium's governing documents automatically entitled it to full indemnity costs, finding that the court retains jurisdiction to determine appropriate costs.

However, the court awarded full indemnity costs of $71,120.97 based on the unit owner's unreasonable refusal to cooperate and his abusive litigation conduct, which included making unfounded allegations and repeatedly ignoring court orders and procedures.

The defendant sought costs thrown away after preparing a motion to settle the terms of a decertification order, which included a request to make the plaintiff's counsel personally liable for an unpaid costs award of $37,800.

Before the motion was heard, the plaintiff's counsel paid the outstanding costs in full, obviating the need for the motion.

The court declined to award costs thrown away to the defendant, emphasizing the judicial policy of encouraging parties to resolve disputes and reduce litigation expenses.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to add a counterclaim seeking a declaration dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in a 2013 intellectual property action.

The defendants argued the counterclaim was necessary to mitigate the costs of preparing for trial on all issues.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed counterclaim was duplicative of the statement of defence, dependent on the main action, and brought with unexplained delay eight years into the litigation.

The defendants brought a motion to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a commercial property after the plaintiffs refused to close the transaction.

The plaintiffs argued the agreement was part of a larger five-property deal and that the defendants acted in bad faith by only waiving conditions on one property while restructuring the vendor take-back mortgage.

The court found that while the plaintiffs raised valid concerns about the defendants' conduct, the defendants had a triable claim to an interest in land and had invested substantially in development plans.

The court granted the CPL on the condition that the defendants' principal provide a personal indemnity undertaking.

At a case conference, the court established timetables for the applicants' upcoming motion for a Norwich order against Teva Canada and a motion to amend the Notice of Application to add Sentry Insurance and potentially other insurers.

The court also amended the timetable for the delivery of factums for the main application.

A case conference was held to establish a timetable for three actions arising from a water loss incident.

The moving party confirmed it owned the water heater and did not retain maintenance services, leading the responding parties to seek instructions to dismiss the action against the rental and maintenance companies.

The parties agreed to a schedule for discoveries and to an order that the three actions be tried together.

The defendant university sought to dismiss the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found the claim to be an unintelligible, rambling discourse that failed to disclose a valid cause of action.

However, noting that attached documents suggested a potential core complaint regarding the university's failure to follow a collective agreement when declaring the plaintiff persona non grata, the court dismissed the claim without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff 20 days to deliver an amended statement of claim complying with the Rules.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action due to the suspension of civil jury trials in the Toronto Region during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted leave to bring the motion after the action was set down for trial, finding the pandemic constituted a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances.

The court struck the jury notice, concluding that the prejudice to the plaintiffs caused by the uncertain delay in waiting for a jury trial outweighed any prejudice to the defendants, who provided no evidence of a litigation strategy reliant on a jury.

The defendant brought a motion in writing on consent for leave to amend its statement of defence and crossclaim.

The court found multiple deficiencies in the motion record, including the failure to attach the proposed amended pleading, lack of supporting affidavit evidence, and an improperly drafted consent and draft order.

Despite the motion being on consent, the court adjourned the motion and ordered the moving party to deliver a fresh, corrected motion record.

The applicant sought damages of $137,772 for losses incurred in a foreign exchange trading account managed by the respondent, who was not registered with the Ontario Securities Commission.

The applicant brought the matter as an application, alleging negligence, misrepresentation, and unconscionability.

The court found that material facts were in dispute, particularly regarding the applicant's level of investment knowledge and the true nature of the parties' relationship, which required credibility assessments.

Consequently, the court ordered the application converted into an action pursuant to Rule 38.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs moved to exempt a $145,000 personal injury settlement from garnishment by a non-party judgment creditor.

The creditor argued the plaintiffs lacked clean hands due to past conduct in evading judgment.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct did not amount to a lack of clean hands and held that damages for pain and suffering, along with associated pre-judgment interest and legal costs, are exempt from garnishment.

The motion was granted, and the full settlement amount was exempted.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to access the defendants' adjacent property to complete brickwork on a new residential home before winter.

The parties were involved in a broader dispute over property lines and construction damage.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm if the structure was left exposed to winter weather, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The motion was granted, permitting temporary access subject to proof of insurance.

The plaintiff, who was injured after falling from scaffolding while doing drywall work at the defendants' home, sought to amend his statement of claim after the expiry of the limitation period.

The original claim was framed in occupiers' liability, alleging acts of omission.

The proposed amendments alleged acts of commission, specifically that the defendant distracted the plaintiff or bumped the scaffolding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the amendments raised a new cause of action that was statute-barred, as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the facts giving rise to the new claim on the date of the incident.

The moving parties sought an adjournment of four related applications and two summary judgment motions due to the late filing of a responding record containing an expert report.

The responding party did not oppose the adjournment but argued the expert report should not have been a surprise.

The court granted the adjournment, extended the deadline to set three of the related cases down for trial, and reserved the costs of the appearance to the hearing on the merits.

The plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury after being hit by a golf ball hit by the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion to increase the damages claimed and to strike the jury notice due to anticipated trial delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted the amendment to damages on consent.

However, the court dismissed the motion to strike the jury notice, adopting a 'wait and see' approach to determine if the region's new civil trial protocol could accommodate urgent civil jury trials, without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to renew the motion later.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action, arguing that civil jury trials would be unavailable for the foreseeable future due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that a jury would not represent a cross-section of the community.

The court dismissed the motion, adopting a 'wait and see' approach to allow the newly implemented Central East Region protocol for civil trials to evolve.

The court found no evidence that jury composition had deteriorated and held that striking the jury based on anticipated delay was premature.

On the eve of a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident claim, the plaintiff brought a motion to exclude late-served video surveillance reports or, alternatively, for an adjournment.

The court found that the recent surveillance was not substantially different from previously disclosed surveillance and did not unfairly surprise the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the motion to exclude the evidence, granting the defendant leave to use the reports for substantive purposes subject to a mid-trial voir dire.

A short adjournment was granted to allow the plaintiff to review the new surveillance.