Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The plaintiff estate trustee brought a motion for default judgment to rectify title to a condominium property.

The deceased plaintiff had alleged that the defendants fraudulently transferred the property into joint tenancy, registered a forged power of attorney, and obtained a mortgage without his knowledge or consent.

The court found the instruments were fraudulent under the Land Titles Act and ordered them deleted from title.

The court also awarded $10,000 in punitive damages against the fraudulent actor and substantial indemnity costs.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal, the defendants sought costs of $11,073.92, which included cancellation fees for missed defence medical assessments.

The court held that the cancellation fees were outside the purview of appeal costs and could be pursued at trial or by separate motion.

The court awarded the successful defendants costs of the appeal fixed at $4,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action, citing delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants opposed, arguing the plaintiff required leave under Rule 48.04 as the action was already set down for trial, and that the action was not ready for trial due to outstanding undertakings.

The court granted leave, finding the pandemic constituted a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances.

The court conditionally struck the jury notice, ordering that if a jury trial cannot be accommodated during the January 2022 sittings in Brampton, the trial will proceed before a judge alone to avoid undue delay.

The plaintiff sued the owners, property managers, and cleaning contractors of a shopping mall after slipping and falling near the food court.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no objective evidence of a hazard on the floor.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's direct evidence that her foot stuck to a sticky substance raised a genuine issue for trial.

Furthermore, the court found insufficient evidence on the record to determine whether the defendants had a reasonable system of inspection and maintenance in place.

The parties resolved a motion regarding a late response to a Request to Admit on consent, leaving only the issue of costs to be decided.

The plaintiff had refused to consent to a short extension of time after the defendants' counsel inadvertently missed the deadline.

The court found that the plaintiff's refusal to consent to a reasonable extension request unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings, especially since the plaintiff had failed to obtain the required leave under the Construction Lien Act before serving the Request to Admit.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants brought an application seeking a declaration of a 25% equitable ownership interest in a property based on an alleged oral agreement.

The respondents denied the agreement.

At the hearing, the parties jointly requested an adjournment to conduct cross-examinations on affidavits.

The court questioned whether the matter should proceed by application given the fundamental factual dispute, but allowed it to continue as an application on consent, noting it is functionally similar to a summary judgment motion and the hearing judge will ultimately determine if the record is sufficient to resolve the dispute.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a prior judgment granting permanent injunctions against the defendant for a years-long campaign of internet harassment and defamation.

The plaintiffs sought orders to remove new defamatory publications that came to their attention after the original summary judgment motions were argued.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing the court was functus officio and raising other procedural objections.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, holding that while it is functus officio regarding the claims decided in the judgment, it retains jurisdiction to enforce its orders.

The motion was granted.

The plaintiff, a former real estate agent for the defendant brokerage, brought a motion for an order under Rule 45.02 or an injunction requiring the defendant to set aside commission funds from transactions he closed.

The plaintiff also sought to strike the Statement of Defence or demand particulars.

The court denied the injunction but granted the Rule 45.02 order, finding the plaintiff had a right to a specific fund of commissions.

The defendant was ordered to provide an accounting, pay existing held funds into court, and set aside 12.5% of gross commissions on an ongoing basis.

The defendant was also ordered to provide particulars.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motions for a Certificate of Pending Litigation and for security pending trial, the defendants sought their costs.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument to defer costs to the trial judge, finding no reason to depart from the general rule that the successful party is entitled to costs.

The court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $18,000 for the CPL motion and $11,000 for the security motion.

At a case conference, the plaintiff sought directions and a timetable for a summary judgment motion regarding an unpaid $138,134.33 instalment on a commercial roofing contract.

The defendants sought to amend their counterclaim to allege fraud on unrelated projects and requested further cross-examinations and productions.

The court held that the proposed counterclaim should not delay the summary judgment motion, emphasizing the need for proportionate and expeditious proceedings under Rule 1.04 and Hryniak.

The court directed that the summary judgment motion proceed without further cross-examinations or productions related to the counterclaim.

The plaintiff brought a class action alleging that the defendant mining company made secondary market misrepresentations by failing to disclose the negative opinions of one of its mining consultants regarding a mineral resource estimate.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed the action, finding that the consultant's opinions were unsolicited, inexpert, premature, and based on unreliable data.

The court held that the defendants were not obliged to disclose unreliable information, meaning there was no omission of a material fact.

In the alternative, the court found that the defendants satisfied the reasonable investigation defence under the Securities Act.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal against a group of corporate defendants.

The court found that the defendants operated as a common employer and that the plaintiff's employment contract was for an indefinite term, despite ambiguous language regarding a three-year 'timeout'.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded the plaintiff eight months' reasonable notice, along with accrued vacation pay and the value of his equity units.

The appellant law firm appealed a Master's order declining to strike out paragraphs from the respondent's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, and awarding costs to the self-represented respondent.

The impugned paragraphs alleged abusive conduct by a partner of the firm.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, finding the Master erred in law by failing to consider whether the paragraphs were relevant to the pleadings regarding a contingency fee agreement.

The court struck the paragraphs as irrelevant and set aside the costs award, allowing the parties to file written submissions on costs.

Following the successful summary judgment motions by six third parties dismissing the third party claims against them, the court determined the costs to be awarded.

The defendants argued that costs for a prior summary judgment motion and an appeal should not be included.

The court found that the preparation for the prior motion and attendance at the appeal were incidental to the third party claims and awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, rejecting a request for substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for cause following an incident involving a female co-worker.

The co-worker moved for leave to intervene in the action under Rule 13.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to protect her moral and physical integrity, arguing that the plaintiff's version of events and cross-examination tactics threatened her reputation in the workplace.

The court granted the motion, finding that the co-worker had a legitimate interest in protecting her integrity and that her limited participation through counsel would not unduly delay or prejudice the proceedings.

The applicant was successful in an application for the partition and sale of a property held as tenants in common with the respondent.

The court previously ordered the sale and directed a reference to the Master.

In this endorsement, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the applicant.

The applicant sought $12,459.98 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court reduced the amount claimed for drafting the notice of application and supporting affidavit due to overlap between counsel and a student-at-law.

Costs were fixed at $11,454.28, inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be paid from the respondent's share of the net proceeds of sale.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of $195,000 in unsecured loans advanced to the defendant corporation.

The defendant argued that the loans were not proven and, alternatively, that a Proceeds Sharing and Priorities Agreement subordinated the plaintiff's unsecured debt to secured investors, preventing judgment.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial, concluding the loans were advanced and remained unpaid, and that the Priorities Agreement did not apply to the unsecured loans.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant in a wrongful conviction action, brought a motion to appoint a non-lawyer with a history as a vexatious litigant as an amicus curiae to assist him during examinations for discovery.

The Crown defendants brought a cross-motion to exclude the non-lawyer from attending further discoveries due to his disruptive conduct.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the non-lawyer did not meet the criteria for an amicus curiae and that his appointment would violate the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Law Society Act.

The court granted the Crown defendants' motion, barring the non-lawyer from attending further discoveries due to his history of disruptive behaviour and failure to comply with previous court directions.

The court also permitted the plaintiff to attend the discoveries of the companion action plaintiffs by video or telephone.