Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The defendants in two related class actions brought a motion seeking production of Class Counsel's detailed time and fee records (Fee Details) in advance of a scheduled fee approval motion.

Class Counsel sought a multiplier of approximately three on its docketed time, totaling nearly $5 million in fees.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Fee Details were necessary for the defendants and the court to assess whether the requested fees were fair and reasonable, particularly given Class Counsel's assertions that there was no duplication of work among the national consortium of law firms.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion under Rule 44 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the interim recovery of their personal property from the defendant moving companies.

The defendants claimed a storer's lien under the Repair and Storage Lien Act (RSLA) for unpaid moving and storage fees, relying on a contract signed on the day of the move.

The court found substantial grounds that the binding agreement was the initial quotation, not the document signed under pressure on moving day.

The court also held the RSLA did not apply as the agreement was fundamentally for moving, not storage.

The court granted the plaintiffs interim possession of their property, conditional on a net payment of $700 to account for the value of services received, less credits and costs.

Following a successful trial for breach of contract regarding a real estate joint venture, the plaintiff sought costs.

The plaintiff had made a formal offer to settle that was lower than the trial judgment.

Applying Rule 49.10, the court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court found the claimed hours and rates reasonable and ordered the defendant to pay $45,757.27 in costs.

The self-represented defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim filed a counterclaim against numerous parties, including government ministries and officials, alleging complicity in his wrongful conviction for civil contempt.

The court conducted a review under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the counterclaim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the claims against the government defendants, finding they were bound to fail due to judicial immunity and constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a subsisting court order.

The claims against the police and private investigators were not dismissed, though the court strongly advised the litigant to seek legal advice to properly plead his causes of action.

The plaintiff purchaser brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a commercial property after an aborted real estate transaction.

The defendants argued the plaintiff failed to close on the agreed-upon date and did not secure the required mortgage assumption.

The court found triable issues existed regarding whether time remained of the essence following multiple extensions and whether the mortgage assumption would have been approved.

Balancing the equities, the court granted the CPL, noting the property's uniqueness to the plaintiff's development plan and that damages would not be a satisfactory remedy.

The defendant brought a motion to stay the Ontario action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff had sued the defendant in Ontario on a personal guarantee related to a promissory note, despite the guarantee containing a New York choice of law and non-exclusive forum selection clause.

The court applied the Van Breda factors and concluded that New York was clearly the more appropriate forum, noting the risk of inconsistent results and the efficiency of applying New York law in a New York court.

The motion was granted and the action was stayed.

The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury claim and the co-defendant municipality's crossclaim arising from a motor vehicle collision.

The plaintiff, who had a stop sign, entered the intersection and was struck by the defendant, who had the right of way.

The court found the plaintiff's expert report unreliable because it assumed the plaintiff stopped 14 meters back from the intersection, which was contrary to evidence and common sense.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant had no reasonable opportunity to avoid the collision, and granted the motion.

The plaintiff brought a defamation action against the defendant regarding Twitter posts that highlighted the plaintiff's past involvement with white supremacist organizations and criticized the City of Hamilton for employing him in its IT department.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the defamation claim had substantial merit, the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant had no valid defences of fair comment and justification.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish that the harm he suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendant's expressions regarding municipal accountability and public safety.

The plaintiff sought leave to assert a statutory cause of action for secondary market misrepresentation under the Securities Act and to certify a class action against SNC-Lavalin and its directors.

The plaintiff alleged that SNC failed to timely disclose a material change when it was informed by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada that it would not be invited to negotiate a remediation agreement regarding criminal charges.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the communication was not a 'change' in the business, operations, or capital of SNC, and therefore not a 'material change' requiring immediate disclosure.

The court also declined to certify the common law negligent misrepresentation claim, as reliance would be an individual issue and the statutory claim was not viable.

Following a motion where the tenant successfully obtained relief from forfeiture and the landlord successfully obtained all rent arrears, both parties sought costs.

The landlord sought $300,000 based on partial indemnity and an unaccepted offer to settle, while the tenant sought $218,388 or that each party bear their own costs.

The court ordered that each party bear their own costs, noting the divided success, the withdrawal of the landlord's offer to settle prior to the hearing, and the unique and unforeseen circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant brought an application challenging the allegedly unauthorized transfer of an interest in his residential property to his former fiancé, creating a joint tenancy.

The applicant also sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

Following the applicant's death, his estate brought a motion for an Order to Continue the proceeding.

The court granted the Order to Continue and, on consent of the respondent, issued the CPL to preserve the property pending litigation.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff claimed a 50% equitable interest in a real estate property based on an oral joint venture agreement, while the defendants argued the relationship was strictly that of borrower and lender secured by promissory notes and a mortgage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence regarding the nature of the parties' relationship raised significant credibility issues that constituted a genuine issue requiring a full trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment following her without-cause dismissal by the defendant.

The court found summary judgment appropriate and determined that the defendant's severance offer of 11.5 months was not within the reasonable range.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court fixed the reasonable notice period at 16 months, capped at 15.5 months due to the plaintiff's successful mitigation.

The court awarded damages totaling $137,048.41, which included base salary, lost bonus, pension matching contributions, and benefits over the notice period.

The defendant obstetricians brought a motion for partial summary judgment in a medical negligence action, arguing the plaintiffs' expert reports were insufficient to establish standard of care or causation.

The motion was brought shortly before a scheduled ten-week trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that partial summary judgment would not be proportionate, cost-effective, or timely, and risked inconsistent findings and duplication of resources.

The court also noted that the sufficiency of the complex expert evidence was better assessed in the context of a full trial.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to deliver a jury notice more than two years after the close of pleadings, citing counsel's inadvertence.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to strike the jury notice.

The court found that while the delay was due to inadvertence, granting leave would cause real and substantial prejudice to the plaintiff because the local court had suspended civil jury trials until at least September 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant's motion was dismissed, and the plaintiff's motion to strike the jury notice was granted.

The non-parties, who occupied the subject property, brought an urgent motion to stay the enforcement of a Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate obtained by the plaintiff mortgagee against the defendant mortgagor.

The non-parties relied on Rule 21.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the non-parties lacked standing to rely on Rule 21.01(3) as they were not defendants in the mortgage action.

The court also declined to set aside the order granting the Writ of Possession, noting the request was not properly before the court and constituted an impermissible collateral attack.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec issued a joint decision in three related class actions against the Attorney General of Canada.

Following the approval of a Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol, the parties sought approval for minor typographical corrections and various translated administrative documents, including notice forms and claim forms.

The courts approved the corrections and the submitted documents, and directed the parties to submit the claims administrator's terms of appointment once finalized.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction against former employees who started a competing business, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and improper solicitation of customers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the plaintiff failed to provide clear and non-speculative evidence of irreparable harm.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the defendants, as an injunction could financially ruin their new business, whereas the plaintiff showed no evidence of actual damage.