Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, arguing that the termination provisions in her employment agreement violated the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) and were therefore void.

The court found that the plaintiff, a sophisticated employee who received independent legal advice, entered into an agreement that explicitly incorporated ESA minimums and provided greater benefits in certain circumstances.

The court held that the 'just cause' provision did not contravene the ESA and dismissed the action against the parent and affiliate companies, finding no joint employer relationship.

The termination provisions were upheld as valid.

The defendants, former legal counsel for the plaintiffs, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' solicitor negligence action on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants were negligent in failing to argue the unconscionability and public policy branches of the Tercon test regarding an exclusion clause in the underlying trial against Toyota.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that the limitation period did not begin to run until the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal in the underlying action, as the plaintiffs reasonably relied on the defendants' advice to pursue appeals and a legal proceeding was not an 'appropriate means' to seek a remedy until the appeal process was exhausted.

During an application to set aside a condominium lien, the applicant's counsel was administratively suspended by the Law Society of Ontario.

The court convened a hearing to determine if it had jurisdiction to rule on the application and whether counsel should pay costs personally.

The court found it had jurisdiction to rule on the application as it was fully argued before the suspension was known.

The court ordered the applicant's counsel to personally pay $800 in costs to the respondent due to his failure to address the suspension promptly and communicate with the court, which caused unnecessary delay and expense.

A request to seal the endorsement was denied.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' franchise claims under the simplified procedure, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $145,670.

The plaintiffs argued this amount was disproportionate to the $100,000 at issue and suggested $35,000.

The court applied the factors under Rule 57.01(1), emphasizing proportionality and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

The court fixed the defendant's partial indemnity costs at $65,000, finding the amount claimed by the defendant to be disproportionate to what was at stake in the simplified procedure action.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's Statement of Defense due to the defendant's failure to pay an $11,000 costs award previously ordered by a Master.

The defendant sought to amend the Master's order to make the costs payable in any event of the cause, citing impecuniosity.

The court declined to amend the Master's unappealed order, noting insufficient evidence of the defendant's inability to obtain financing.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the costs by November 1, 2021, failing which her Statement of Defense would be struck.

The plaintiffs sought to have their statement of claim treated as issued on June 25, 2019, the day the limitation period expired under the Insurance Act.

A paralegal had presented the claim to a court clerk before the 5:00 pm closing time, but the clerk refused to process it, stating his computer was shutting down.

The court found that the plaintiffs did all that was required to commence the proceeding in time and that the failure was solely due to court staff.

Exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the court granted a nunc pro tunc order declaring the claim issued on June 25, 2019, and dismissed the defendants' summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff's counsel brought a motion to be removed as lawyers of record and for a charging order for legal fees and disbursements.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, citing prejudice due to an upcoming trial.

The court granted the removal order, finding an irreparable breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship that outweighed the potential prejudice to the plaintiff.

However, the court dismissed the request for a charging order, as counsel failed to provide evidence of the specific retainer terms or demonstrate that their work was instrumental to any recovery.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence due to the nonpayment of previous costs awards totaling $25,700.

On the eve of the hearing, the parties settled the motion, leaving only the issue of costs to be decided.

The plaintiff sought costs of approximately $15,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the defendants argued for $2,500 to $3,500.

The court found the motion was unnecessary and caused by the defendants' failure to pay prior awards, but reduced the plaintiff's claimed hours for an articling student.

Costs were fixed at $6,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiffs, a Muslim-Canadian businessman and his restaurant chain, sued the defendants for defamation after the defendants posted videos containing hateful comments about Muslims and the restaurant.

One of the defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, and alternatively under Rule 21.01(3)(d) as an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant's expression was not related to a matter of public interest, but rather constituted hallmarks of hate directed at the plaintiffs.

The court also found the pleadings set out a valid prima facie case of defamation.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion to amend its statement of claim against the defendant tenant, its corporate parent, and individual directors following the abandonment of a commercial lease.

The proposed amendments sought to pierce the corporate veil and allege that the corporate parent and individuals were the alter ego of the tenant.

The court denied the amendments relating to piercing the corporate veil, finding they lacked the requisite particulars and were mere 'window dressing' attempting to turn a breach of contract into a fraud claim.

However, the court allowed an amendment adding a claim under section 50 of the Commercial Tenancies Act, noting that its viability should not be determined at this preliminary stage.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action, the third party actions, and all counterclaims and crossclaims arising from a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs did not oppose the dismissal of their action.

A third party opposed the dismissal of her counterclaim and crossclaim for contribution and indemnity.

The court held that because the main action was being dismissed, the third party's claims for contribution and indemnity had no basis in law and could not survive.

The motions were granted and all claims were dismissed.

The defendants in a solicitor negligence action brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel of record, arguing that counsel would inevitably be required to testify as a witness regarding advice he gave the plaintiff in the underlying real estate litigation.

The court applied the factors from Essa (Township) v. Guergis and concluded that counsel's evidence regarding the plaintiff's decision to proceed with the underlying action was highly relevant to the defendants' defence that the plaintiff's losses were caused by his current counsel's advice.

The court ordered the removal of the plaintiff's counsel and directed the production of counsel's file and accounts from the underlying action based on a deemed waiver of solicitor-client privilege.

The respondent was previously found in civil contempt for breaching a court order that enjoined him from providing unauthorized legal services.

The Law Society sought a 30-day period of incarceration.

The court declined to order incarceration or a fine, noting the respondent's apology, remorse, and limited financial means.

The court ordered the respondent to complete 40 hours of community service and make monthly payments towards outstanding costs orders.

The plaintiff in a proposed securities class action moved for certification for settlement purposes, approval of a partial settlement with the auditor defendant, dismissal of the action against individual defendants, and approval of class counsel fees.

The action alleged misrepresentations in the corporate defendant's financial statements.

The court approved the $1 million (USD) settlement with the auditor, finding it fair and reasonable, particularly given the statutory liability limits for experts.

The court also approved the dismissal against the individual defendants and class counsel's fee request of 30% of the settlement funds plus disbursements.

In a defamation action concerning an article criticizing the plaintiffs' prenatal paternity test, the defendants brought a motion to amend their Statement of Defence after the close of evidence at trial.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the amendment introduced new allegations regarding the validity of the underlying science, which would cause non-compensable prejudice.

The court reviewed the existing pleadings and expert reports, concluding that the validity of the science was already a live issue and the amendment merely clarified existing allegations.

The court granted the motion to amend, finding no prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The defendants defaulted on a $700,000 mortgage and sought an order under s. 12 of the Mortgages Act to discharge the mortgage by paying an undisputed amount into court while delaying enforcement to secure refinancing.

The plaintiff opposed paying less than the full claimed amount and delaying enforcement.

The court granted the defendants 15 days to pay the undisputed amount of $745,465 to postpone the mortgage, failing which the plaintiff would be entitled to partial summary judgment and a writ of possession.

The disputed balance was ordered to be determined at a mini-trial.

The plaintiff, a promising clarinetist, applied to a prestigious music conservatory and was offered a full scholarship.

The defendant, his girlfriend at the time, intercepted the acceptance email, declined the offer in his name, and sent him a fake rejection email to prevent him from moving away.

The plaintiff sued for deceit and the defendant was noted in default.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarding $300,000 in general damages for loss of educational opportunity and delayed career entry, plus $25,000 in aggravated damages and $25,000 in punitive damages for the defendant's reprehensible conduct.

The minor plaintiff, through her litigation guardian, brought a motion for leave to discontinue the action against one of the defendants, the property lessor, after learning the slip and fall occurred inside the store.

The plaintiff also sought to dispense with service on the Children's Lawyer.

The court declined to grant the relief requested due to several deficiencies in the motion record, including inconsistent consents from other defendants, lack of position from cross-claiming defendants, failure to serve the litigation guardian, and insufficient evidence supporting the request to dispense with service on the Children's Lawyer.

The court remained seized and directed the filing of additional materials.