Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation against a property they claimed to beneficially own, despite the defendants being the registered owners.

The court found a triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' interest in the property due to conflicting evidence about the nature of their payments and agreements.

However, applying the Dhunna factors, the court concluded the equities favoured the defendants because the property was not unique and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The motion for a certificate of pending litigation was dismissed, but the court imposed conditions preventing the defendants from dissipating the property's equity pending trial.

The applicant brought a motion for a penalty after the respondent estate trustee failed to purge her contempt for ignoring a court order to file and pass her accounts.

The respondent had evaded service and ignored multiple court orders for over four and a half years.

The court found no mitigating factors and ordered the respondent to pay a $20,000 fine within 60 days, failing which she would serve a seven-day jail sentence.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought forfeiture of the contents of several bank accounts under the Civil Remedies Act.

At the scheduled hearing, the court found that the AG had uploaded over 112,000 pages of unorganized and improperly formatted documents to CaseLines, rendering the electronic record unusable.

The court adjourned the hearing and issued detailed procedural directions for the proper organization, hyperlinking, and uploading of the electronic materials.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for breaching an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a new build home.

The purchaser failed to close the transaction, alleging confusion and forgery regarding documents amending the purchase price to include selected upgrades.

The court found a valid and binding contract existed, which the purchaser breached.

The court also found the vendor reasonably mitigated its damages by reselling the property, and awarded damages to the vendor for the difference in sale price and carrying costs, net of the purchaser's forfeited deposit.

The plaintiffs in a class action against Kew Media Group Inc. and several individual defendants sought consent orders to streamline the litigation.

The corporate defendant was in insolvency proceedings with a stay in place.

The plaintiffs agreed to discontinue the action against five individual defendants, hold the case in abeyance against two others, and toll applicable limitation periods.

The court granted the consent orders for discontinuance, leave to proceed under the Securities Act, and certification under the Class Proceedings Act against the remaining individual defendants, finding the agreements made the case more efficient without adversely affecting class members.

Following a successful motion for class action certification regarding PFAS groundwater contamination, the plaintiffs sought costs against the unsuccessful defendant, the National Research Council of Canada (NRC).

A successful co-defendant, Carleton University, sought costs against the plaintiffs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57, the court ordered NRC to pay the plaintiffs $207,500 in costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay Carleton University $20,000 plus HST in costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to consolidate two London actions, order joint examinations for discovery with a related Toronto action, waive the deemed undertaking rule to allow sharing of evidence between the actions, and transfer the London action to Toronto.

The defendants opposed the joint discovery and waiver of the deemed undertaking rule.

The court granted the consolidation on consent and waived the deemed undertaking rule, finding significant overlap in evidence and witnesses, and that joint proceedings would be more efficient and avoid inconsistent findings.

The request to transfer the action to Toronto was deferred to the Regional Senior Justice in Toronto.

The tenant and landlord brought cross-applications regarding a commercial lease dispute arising during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The parties had agreed to a temporary rent reduction during the lockdown, but disputed its duration and whether the landlord was obligated to apply for the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance (CECRA) program.

The court found the rent relief agreement validly terminated in August 2020 and that the landlord made no binding promise to apply for CECRA.

However, applying the doctrine of spent breach, the court held the tenant could still exercise its lease renewal option provided arrears were paid.

Claims regarding maintenance breaches were directed to trial.

The appellant appealed a Master's order requiring it to pay security for costs.

The Master had found that the appellant, a foreign corporation, had insufficient assets in Ontario and failed to demonstrate impecuniosity on a balance of probabilities due to inadequate financial disclosure and credibility issues with its principal.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review and found no basis to interfere with the Master's assessment of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for an injunction to prevent the termination of its franchise, the defendants sought their costs.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle and the defendants' cost outline.

Finding the time spent and rates charged to be reasonable, the court awarded the defendants their partial indemnity costs fixed at $41,670.61.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against a corporate franchisee and its personal guarantors for defaulting on a business loan.

The franchisee had surrendered its restaurant to the franchisor and sought to rescind the franchise agreement.

Relying on the reasons in a companion case involving the same franchisor and one of the same guarantors, the court granted summary judgment for the outstanding loan amounts and awarded full indemnity costs.

The defendants in a motor vehicle accident tort action brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend orthopaedic and neurological defence medical examinations.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the defendants were issue estopped because the Licence Appeal Tribunal had already found her to be catastrophically impaired under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The court rejected the issue estoppel argument, noting the different thresholds between SABS and tort actions and the 'firewall' between the two processes.

The court granted the orthopaedic examination as the plaintiff had put her physical condition in issue, but denied the neurological examination because the plaintiff had not claimed neurological impairment.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for alleged Charter breaches, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff argued for no costs on the basis that the case was pursued in the public interest.

The defendant sought a modest costs award, noting the plaintiff's decision to traverse the action from Small Claims Court to the Superior Court and his rejection of two Rule 49 offers to settle.

The court awarded the defendant $25,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, taking into account the early offers to settle and the plaintiff's assumption of risk.

The plaintiff brought a motion to add a proposed defendant to a motor vehicle accident claim after the presumptive two-year limitation period had expired.

The plaintiff argued she only discovered the proposed defendant's involvement when informed by the existing defendants' counsel, as the police report she received only showed two vehicles.

The proposed defendant argued the plaintiff was aware of his presence at the scene.

The Master found an issue of fact regarding discoverability and granted the motion to add the defendant, leaving the limitations defence to be pleaded and determined at trial.

The applicant, a prominent religious leader, sought a publication ban and sealing order regarding a paternity application, initially claiming he had no sexual relations with the respondent.

After DNA testing confirmed he was the father, he continued to seek the ban to protect his reputation and commercial interests.

The court dismissed the request, applying the open courts principle and finding that the public interest in transparency outweighed the applicant's desire to suppress truthful information about his conduct.

The plaintiff landlords moved for default judgment against the defendant tenant for arrears of rent and damages for lost future rent after terminating a commercial lease.

The tenant had failed to pay rent and was noted in default.

The court granted partial judgment for the rent arrears and costs, but declined to award damages for lost future rent on the default judgment motion, as the landlords failed to provide sufficient evidence of the actual rental value of the premises and the time required to find a new tenant.

The claim for lost future rent was directed to an assessment of damages.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' proposed class action on summary judgment, the successful defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis totalling approximately $2.3 million.

The plaintiffs and the Class Proceedings Fund argued that the costs should be reduced to $600,000 in the aggregate, asserting that the case was not complex, was in the public interest, raised novel points of law, and that a large costs award would have a chilling effect on class actions.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the litigation was primarily commercial, involved complex issues, and that the normal costs rules should apply.

The court awarded the defendants their requested costs, subject to a reduction of one expert witness's fee.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure indicating its intention to dismiss the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The applicant responded with unreasonable attacks against court staff and sought $40 million in damages.

The court found the application had no merit, as the applicant failed to provide any evidence or jurisprudence to support his claims of discrimination and bias.

The application for judicial review was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.