Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The applicants sought a declaration regarding the interpretation of the 'Outside Date' in a restructuring support agreement.

The respondent, a cannabis company, argued that any extension of the Outside Date required its initiation or consent.

The court found that the plain and ordinary meaning of the agreement allowed the lenders to automatically extend the Outside Date upon their written consent, acting reasonably, without the need for the respondent's consent.

The court granted the declaration sought by the applicants.

The defendant moved for the release of proceeds held in trust from the sale of her home.

The plaintiffs had previously obtained a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on an ex parte motion, claiming an interest in the property based on an alleged agreement of purchase and sale.

The property was subsequently sold by a mortgage lender after the defendant defaulted, and the net proceeds were held in trust.

The court found that the CPL should have been discharged due to the plaintiffs' failure to make full and fair disclosure on the ex parte motion and because equitable factors favoured discharge.

The court also declined to order the funds held as security under Rule 45.02, noting the plaintiffs' claim was ultimately for damages.

The motion was granted and the funds were ordered released to the defendant.

Following a judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for diminution in property value and engineering expenses due to environmental contamination, the parties disputed the calculation of prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff sought interest from the date the defendant was put on notice of the contamination at the presumptive rate of 1.3%, while the defendant argued for a later date and lower rate.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding no reason to depart from the presumptive rate or the date the cause of action arose, and awarded prejudgment interest accordingly.

The plaintiff appealed an Associate Judge's order requiring her to attend defence medical examinations.

She brought a motion to stay the order pending appeal and for leave to admit fresh evidence of her psychiatric distress following the release of the order.

The court granted the unopposed stay with costs.

However, the court dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, applying the Palmer test.

The court found that the fresh evidence was not relevant to a decisive issue and would not have affected the result, as the plaintiff's genuine fears and vulnerabilities regarding the examinations during the COVID-19 pandemic were already before the Associate Judge.

The moving parties (defendants) sought an order to approve a loan and dispense with the consent of the responding parties (plaintiffs) for the loan and future financing.

The moving parties argued that the responding parties' refusal to consent was oppressive and intended to leverage a buyout.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties had not made a claim for oppression and that the court could not use its inherent jurisdiction to rewrite a commercial agreement negotiated at arm's length by sophisticated parties.

Despite the responding parties' success, the court declined to award costs due to their inequitable conduct.

The plaintiff served notices of examination requiring the defendants' representatives to attend examinations for discovery in person.

The defendants objected and requested that the examinations proceed by video conference.

The court held a case conference under Rule 1.08(8) to determine the method of attendance.

Applying the factors in Rule 1.08(6), the court ordered the examinations to proceed virtually, emphasizing that virtual proceedings enhance access to justice by reducing costs and increasing efficiency, and that routine discoveries do not require in-person attendance.

The applicants moved to hold the respondent, a former condominium board president, in contempt of court for failing to comply with a consent order.

The respondent had agreed to resign, turn over corporate email access, and swear a statutory declaration regarding corporate funds, but failed to do so timely or truthfully.

The court declined to make a contempt finding, noting it is a remedy of last resort.

Instead, the court enforced the consent order's liquidated damages clause of $125,000 for non-compliance and vested the respondent's interest in the corporate email account in the condominium corporation.

The applicant unit owner sought an oppression remedy and $50,000 in damages against the respondent condominium corporation and its volunteer directors, alleging they oppressively delayed replacing his drafty bedroom window for 13 years.

The court dismissed the application, finding the corporation acted reasonably, followed its window replacement policy, and did not breach its duty to repair.

The court also held that suing the directors personally was vexatious, as there were no allegations of bad faith or personal benefit to support personal liability.

The plaintiffs sought early production of an investigation report from the defendants to determine whether there was an evidentiary basis to serve two John Doe defendants located in Mexico.

The defendants opposed the request, arguing that the normal discovery process under the Rules of Civil Procedure should be followed.

The court agreed with the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs could not compel early production to avoid the ordinary costs risks of litigation.

The plaintiffs were ordered to serve the remaining defendants within 60 days.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend her Statement of Claim to add the Crown and various provincial ministries as defendants, and to make related amendments alleging misfeasance, conspiracy, and Charter breaches arising from the mistaken transfer of her vehicle's ownership and detachment of her license plate.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amended claim lacked the heightened particularity required for serious allegations like conspiracy and misfeasance, and improperly named individual ministries rather than the Crown.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to deliver a re-drafted Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim within 30 days.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against her investment advisors and related corporations, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, knowing assistance, knowing receipt, breach of contract, and oppression in relation to the sale of promissory notes.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the claims did not satisfy the cause of action, common issues, and preferable procedure criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court held that the existence of a fiduciary duty and any breach thereof would require individualized assessments, and that the secondary claims for knowing assistance and knowing receipt were similarly flawed and lacked a basis in fact.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes against Morgan Stanley regarding alleged price-fixing in the foreign exchange market.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, noting that the criteria may be less rigorously applied in a settlement context.

The court approved the settlement agreement, which included a payment of USD$2.3 million by the settling defendant.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident brought a preliminary motion to exclude photographs of vehicle damage at trial.

The plaintiff argued the photographs were irrelevant since liability was admitted, and that admitting them without expert biomechanical evidence would invite unguided speculation by the jury that minor vehicle damage equates to minor injury.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the photographs were relevant to causation and admissible without expert evidence, as causation is a matter of common sense.

The court noted that a jury instruction would be given to clarify that serious injuries can still result from low-impact collisions.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the applicant sought costs for the entire proceeding.

The applicant served offers to settle that compared well with the results achieved, and the respondent's uncooperative approach increased costs.

The court found the requested amount of $62,100.71 to be reasonable and proportional, and ordered the respondent to pay this amount forthwith.

The plaintiff landlord sued its insurer after the insurer denied a claim under an employee dishonesty policy.

The plaintiff alleged its property manager stole rent money and misused a corporate credit card.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the property manager was an independent contractor, not an employee.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the property manager was an employee based on the level of control and the nature of the relationship.

The court awarded the plaintiff $58,761 for the stolen rent but dismissed the credit card claim, finding it was a debtor-creditor arrangement.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claims for bad faith and punitive damages, finding the insurer handled the complex claim fairly.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' Rule 21 motion to strike the statement of claim, the successful plaintiff sought full indemnity costs of $13,324.96.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, noting the motion was not unreasonable given the poor drafting of the statement of claim.

Costs were fixed at $6,500 all inclusive.

Following a largely unsuccessful motion by the plaintiff to amend his claim and add defendants in a putative class action, the successful respondents sought costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the Independent Electrical System Operator ($24,000), the Solart-associated entities ($12,500), Melanie Lacroix ($2,500), and Sunny Natalia ($2,500).

The court declined to award the plaintiff costs against the unsuccessful respondent Nikhil Toshniwal regarding the unopposed document service relief.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence and note him in default, alleging failure to comply with a Master's order regarding a US bankruptcy petition and failure to pay costs awards totalling $29,000.

The self-represented defendant made submissions during the hearing but could not immediately point to evidence in the voluminous record to support his claims of compliance.

The court issued an interim endorsement setting a timetable for the parties to provide written submissions identifying the relevant evidence in the record.

The applicant brought a motion opposing the confirmation of an Assessment Officer's certificate of assessment of her former solicitors' accounts.

The applicant had retained the solicitors for a potential oppression claim related to a family law proceeding.

The Assessment Officer reduced the accounts slightly but largely upheld them, finding the matter was of above-average complexity and the fees were reasonable.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, finding no palpable and overriding errors or errors in principle in the Assessment Officer's application of the relevant factors or factual findings.

The certificate of assessment was confirmed.

The defendant brought a motion and the plaintiff brought a cross-motion to compel answers to outstanding undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery in a wrongful dismissal action.

The court ordered the plaintiff to provide information regarding mitigation and income, largely resolving the defendant's motion by agreement.

The court ordered the defendant to answer questions regarding the plaintiff's start date and who made the decision to terminate him, finding them relevant to notice and bad faith claims.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's request for answers regarding the HR manager's personal motives, finding them speculative and overbroad.