Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The applicant, a member of a taxi co-operative, brought an application seeking disclosure of the co-operative's members' list to assist in his bid for election to the board of directors.

After the application was commenced, the applicant complied with the statutory requirement to provide an affidavit, and the co-operative disclosed the list, rendering the main relief moot.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs up to the date of disclosure because the co-operative had not been transparent about the statutory requirements.

The court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to order the disclosure of members' email addresses and telephone numbers, finding that the statute only required disclosure of names and addresses.

The defendants brought a motion under section 47 of the Construction Lien Act to discharge the plaintiff's claim for lien, arguing it was registered out of time.

The defendants claimed the plaintiff abandoned the contract more than 45 days before registering the lien, relying on photographs showing the plaintiff's equipment had been removed.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the date of abandonment and completion were triable issues requiring findings of fact and credibility that could not be resolved on a documentary record.

The plaintiff commenced defamation actions against the defendants regarding online broadcasts and internet postings.

A summary judgment motion was scheduled for September 21, 2021.

On September 10, 2021, the defendant retained new counsel, who requested a brief adjournment to prepare a new factum and provide proper representation.

The court denied the adjournment request, finding that the defendant provided no explanation for the late retention of counsel, the plaintiff would be prejudiced by further delay as the alleged defamatory postings remained online, and the administration of justice would not be served by a last-minute adjournment.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action regarding a defective boiler system installation, arguing the claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff argued it did not discover the fundamental incompatibility of the boiler systems until it received a draft engineering report in July 2015, having previously relied on advice that the issues were minor operational problems.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding when the plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of the material facts giving rise to the claim, particularly given the plaintiff's reliance on the defendants' professional advice.

Following a judgment granting the applicant's application and dismissing the respondent's cross-application, the parties could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on Rule 49 offers to settle.

The court found that the respondent's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs generally, but the applicant's offers to settle triggered Rule 49.10 consequences.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $60,000, representing partial indemnity costs until the date of the offers and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The applicant law firm sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully enforcing an arbitration award against the respondents.

The respondents argued that the applicant, as a self-represented law firm, was only entitled to nominal costs because it failed to provide evidence of lost opportunity costs or distinguish between client time and counsel time.

The court agreed with the respondents, finding no egregious conduct to warrant substantial indemnity costs and applying appellate principles to award only nominal costs of $5,525.47.

The applicant and respondent purchased a house together as tenants in common.

The respondent moved out shortly after, and the applicant paid all mortgage and maintenance fees while living in the property rent-free.

After the property was sold, the applicant sought a declaration of unjust enrichment and a constructive trust, claiming 90% of the net proceeds.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding the applicant suffered no deprivation and there was a juristic reason to enforce their agreement to split proceeds equally.

The court ordered the net proceeds to be divided equally after accounting for deductions, including the applicant's operating expenses and the respondent's entitlement to occupational rent.

The defendant tenant and guarantor brought a motion to stay the plaintiff landlord's action for rent arrears in favour of arbitration, relying on the arbitration clause in their commercial lease.

The landlord opposed the stay, arguing the matter was a proper one for summary judgment under section 7(2)(5) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The court dismissed the motion to stay, finding that the tenant's proposed defences regarding additional rent and mitigation did not raise genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court allowed the litigation to proceed and awarded the landlord $5,000 in full indemnity costs.

At a case conference regarding the plaintiff's motion for default judgment, the defendants indicated an intention to challenge the validity of service in Hong Kong under the Hague Convention.

The defendants' counsel appeared on a limited scope retainer solely to contest service.

The court held that it would be an abuse of process to allow the defendants to delay adjudication by retaining counsel incrementally.

The court scheduled the plaintiff's motion for default judgment and directed that any motions by the defendants to set aside service or lift the noting in default be heard at the same time.

The plaintiff, an unregistered real estate salesperson, sued the defendant brokerage for unpaid commissions.

The court found that the plaintiff had performed services in connection with trades in real estate, but his claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and wrongful dismissal were barred by section 9 of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, which prohibits actions for remuneration by unregistered persons.

Although the action was dismissed, the court ordered the successful defendants to pay the plaintiff's full indemnity costs due to their reprehensible conduct in hiring an unregistered person and needlessly prolonging the litigation.

The plaintiffs brought an action for defamation and breach of a non-disclosure agreement regarding derogatory internet posts allegedly authored by the defendant under a pseudonym.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding multiple genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning the identity of the author and the credibility of the parties.

The court declined to use enhanced fact-finding powers, holding that a trial was necessary to fully appreciate the voluminous and conflicting evidence.

Additionally, the court awarded $11,860 in costs to a former defendant against whom the action had been discontinued.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an urgent motion seeking 18 forms of relief, primarily an interlocutory injunction to stay the power of sale of her commercial condominium unit by the defendant condominium corporation.

The corporation had registered a lien and initiated power of sale proceedings due to the plaintiff's failure to pay common element fees.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction as no permanent injunction was sought in the underlying action.

Furthermore, the court held the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction, and dismissed her claims for Mareva and Mills injunctions, as well as her requests to strike the defendants' pleadings.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' medical malpractice action on a summary judgment motion due to the expiry of the limitation period, the successful defendant sought costs of $117,413.06.

The plaintiffs did not dispute the presumptive entitlement to costs but argued for a reduction.

The court found the claimed 388 hours of lawyer time excessive, noting the action did not advance to trial preparation and the limitation issue was not novel.

Exercising its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court reduced the fees to ensure proportionality, fixing the total costs payable by the plaintiffs at $72,375.25 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant brought a motion in writing to discharge a section 71 notice on its property and release a $50,000 deposit following an aborted real estate transaction.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing it still had an agreement to purchase the unique property and that the defendant caused the financing failure by withholding financial information.

The court declined to decide the matter in writing due to untested conflicting assertions of fact and credibility issues, adjourning the motion to be heard in open court.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an order under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act requiring the defendants to pay $8 million into court as security for an environmental contamination claim.

Prior to the motion, the parties exchanged offers to settle.

While they agreed on the security amount, they disagreed on when and how the costs of the motion would be determined.

The defendants argued a settlement was reached and brought a motion to enforce it, claiming costs were a collateral issue.

The court found that costs were an essential term of the settlement offers and, because there was no unequivocal acceptance of all terms, no binding settlement was reached.

The motion to enforce the settlement was dismissed.

The moving parties, who were inmates placed in administrative segregation after the opt-out deadline in a class action against Canada, brought a motion to opt out of the class action.

The motion became moot when the parties agreed to amend the class definition and provide a new opt-out period.

The moving parties sought costs for the unargued motion.

The court found that the motion was unnecessary because the moving parties were not class members to begin with, and ordered the costs of the motion to be in the cause of their external individual actions against Canada.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendants failed to close on an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages by rejecting an offer to reduce the purchase price by $50,000 and subsequently selling the property to a third party for $298,000 less than the original contract price.

The court found that the plaintiffs acted reasonably in their mitigation efforts and were not obligated to accept a new bargain from the breaching purchasers.

Summary judgment was granted, awarding the plaintiffs $368,585.95 in damages, representing the difference in sale price and carrying costs, less the deposit.

The plaintiff sued for damages, claiming an equitable life estate or option to purchase a residential property based on an unwritten agreement.

The plaintiff had originally owned the property but lost it to foreclosure, after which he remained as a tenant under successive owners.

The court found the plaintiff's claims to be entirely fabricated and contradicted by documentary evidence, including a lease in which he explicitly released all claims to the property.

The action was dismissed.