Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The defendant brought a motion to strike certain passages of the statement of claim and to transfer the matter to small claims court.

The plaintiff claimed $53,500 arising from a joint property investment.

The court dismissed the request to transfer the matter, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claim fell within the small claims court's monetary jurisdiction.

However, the court struck the plaintiff's claim for a Certificate of Pending Litigation as there was no interest in land in question, and struck several paragraphs of the statement of claim that were argumentative or lacked connection to the alleged breach of contract.

The self-represented defendant brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused by the plaintiff's employees during cross-examinations on their affidavits filed in support of a summary judgment motion.

The defendant sought production of the plaintiff's entire loan files and answers regarding employee targets and knowledge of regulations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requests amounted to a fishing expedition, lacked relevance to the issues on the summary judgment motion, and failed to meet the principle of proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff employee brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) seeking a pre-trial determination that the termination provision in her employment agreement was unenforceable.

The defendant employer opposed the motion, arguing it was an inappropriate use of the rule.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the interpretation of the termination provision was a question of mixed fact and law, not a pure question of law.

Furthermore, the court held that deciding the issue would not dispose of the action, substantially shorten the trial, or save costs, especially since the primary issue was whether the employer had just cause for termination.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowners for unpaid invoices totaling approximately $35,000 relating to a new home build.

The parties had an oral "time and materials" contract.

The defendants counterclaimed, alleging overcharges for labour, improper 15% mark-ups on materials and subcontractors, and damages for deficient work.

The court found the agreed labour rate was $60/hour for the primary carpenters and $40/hour for general labourers.

The court disallowed the 15% mark-up on materials as it was not an express or implied term, but allowed the mark-up on most subcontractors on a quantum meruit basis.

The defendants' counterclaim for deficiencies was dismissed for lack of proof.

The plaintiff was granted judgment subject to set-offs for the disallowed mark-ups, and a declaration for a construction lien.

Following a trial where the plaintiff employer was awarded $537,885 in compensatory damages for an employee's fraudulent kickback scheme, the plaintiff sought supplementary orders for a constructive trust over the employee's property and punitive damages.

The court granted a constructive trust, finding a direct link between the stolen funds and the property, but stayed the order for 30 days to allow the defendant to pay the judgment.

The court also awarded $200,000 in punitive damages, emphasizing the need for deterrence and denunciation of employee theft.

The defendants (purchasers) brought a motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff (builder/vendor) for the return of their deposit and damages following a failed real estate transaction.

The plaintiff had elected to affirm the Agreement of Purchase and Sale after an anticipatory repudiation by the defendants, keeping the closing date alive.

On the closing date, the defendants tendered the closing funds, but the plaintiff failed to provide a substantially completed home ready for occupancy.

The court found the plaintiff in fundamental breach of the agreement, entitling the defendants to terminate the contract.

The defendants were awarded the return of their $55,000 deposit and $25,000 in damages for the costs of borrowing the closing funds.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motions for leave to assert a statutory cause of action under the Securities Act and for certification of a class proceeding, the successful defendants sought costs of $363,184 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued for a reduced award of $250,000, citing the novelty and public interest of the case under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court agreed that the case raised a novel point of law and involved a matter of public interest, justifying a reduction in the costs award.

Costs were fixed at $285,000 all-inclusive.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' self-represented statement of claim, which alleged false arrest, malicious prosecution, and other torts arising from a high-profile arrest related to an alleged prostitution ring.

The court struck the claim against the Attorney General of Canada without leave to amend, finding no tenable cause of action.

The court also struck the claim against the RCMP due to pleading deficiencies, but granted the plaintiffs leave to deliver a fresh as amended statement of claim to properly particularize their causes of action.

The plaintiff, previously declared a vexatious litigant, brought a motion seeking retroactive leave under s. 140(4) of the Courts of Justice Act to commence and continue an action against the police board and several officers for false arrest and related claims.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's history of litigation against the police and the evidence provided in support of the current claim.

The court found that while the proceeding was not an abuse of process, the plaintiff failed to meet the onus of showing reasonable grounds for the proceeding, as he provided only a bald affidavit adopting the statement of claim and failed to refute police disclosure records indicating he was intoxicated and caused a disturbance.

The motion for leave was dismissed.

The court, on its own motion under Rule 2.1.03, stayed the plaintiff's action because it was instituted without leave, contrary to a prior vexatious litigant order.

The court directed that the action will be dismissed if the plaintiff does not commence an application for leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act within 60 days.

The moving party defendants, who were directors of the corporate defendants, brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim against them for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs, who sold their family farm to the corporate defendants and were left with worthless preference shares following insolvency proceedings, alleged the directors acted oppressively and sought personal liability under s. 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The court found that the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim sufficiently pleaded facts that, if proven, could support a finding of oppression and personal liability against the directors.

The motion to strike was dismissed.

The plaintiff's lawyer brought a motion to be removed as lawyer of record due to an irreparable breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, filing voluminous materials containing serious allegations against the lawyer and seeking various unrelated orders, including a request that the case management judge recuse herself for bias.

The court granted the motion to remove the lawyer, finding that the relationship had irreparably broken down and that the plaintiff would not be prejudiced.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's requests for other relief and denied the recusal request, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to hold the defendant in contempt of court for violating a Mareva injunction and subsequent court orders.

The defendant had previously agreed to a settlement to repay misappropriated funds and consented to the continuation of the Mareva injunction.

However, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally breached the orders by failing to disclose assets, moving funds through undisclosed accounts, and failing to provide evidence for his non-attendance at a previous hearing.

The defendant was found in contempt, ordered to surrender his passports, and a sentencing hearing was directed to be scheduled.

The plaintiff was severely assaulted by another customer in the vestibule of a TD Bank ATM late at night.

The plaintiff sued TD Bank for negligence and breach of the Occupier's Liability Act, alleging inadequate security measures.

TD brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

After conducting a voir dire to determine the admissibility of five expert reports, the court found that the assault was a random, unforeseeable event and that TD's security measures were reasonable for a low-risk branch.

The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action against TD.

The Crown brought a motion for default judgment seeking a declaration that the Aylmer Church's conveyance of real property to the Lethbridge Church was fraudulent and void.

The Aylmer Church had transferred the property for nominal consideration shortly after being ordered to pay substantial fines and costs for contempt of court related to COVID-19 public health orders.

The court found multiple badges of fraud, including a non-arm's length transfer, suspicious timing, grossly inadequate consideration, and retained beneficial use.

The motion was granted, the conveyance was declared void, and the lands were made subject to execution by the Crown.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The defendants argued no costs should be awarded and objected to duplicative billing.

The court found the plaintiffs were entitled to substantial indemnity costs from the date of their offer but reduced the quantum to account for unnecessary duplication, fixing costs at $23,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff commenced an action against his real estate agent and brokerage, alleging the agent forged his signature on a waiver of a home inspection condition.

This same allegation of forgery had been previously raised by the plaintiff and rejected by a judge in an earlier application brought by the vendor to keep the plaintiff's deposit.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim as an abuse of process and barred by issue estoppel.

The court granted the motion, finding that the core issue was identical to the one already decided, the plaintiff had the opportunity to appeal the prior decision but did not, and allowing the claim to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The plaintiff alleged injuries from a slip and fall on a sidewalk and commenced an action against the City of Toronto and the registered owner of the adjacent property, Maria Naccarato.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiff learned Maria Naccarato had died years prior and her son, Joe Naccarato, was the executor and occupier of the property.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to substitute Joe Naccarato as a defendant.

The court granted the motion, finding the pleading constituted a misnomer, the intended defendant had timely notice, and there was no non-compensable prejudice.