Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The respondents in a will challenge brought a motion for the production of the applicant's psychiatric records, arguing the records might contain evidence supporting their limitation period defence.

The court dismissed the motion, applying the Ryan test for privilege.

The court found the records were highly confidential, of questionable relevance, and that the harm to the applicant's mental health and ongoing psychiatric treatment outweighed any potential benefit to the litigation.

Following the dismissal of its application challenging a COVID-19 business closure order, the applicant argued it should not pay costs because it was a public interest litigant raising novel issues.

The court rejected this argument, finding the applicant litigated for its own financial interests and the statutory interpretation issues were not novel.

The court also held that the Health Unit, having been added as a party on consent, was entitled to costs.

The applicant was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs of $35,000 to the Attorney General and $20,000 to the Health Unit.

Following a previous decision, the parties reached an agreement on the costs of the motion.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendant $10,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, in accordance with the parties' agreement.

The plaintiff sought judgment for defamation and damages, as well as the conclusion of contempt proceedings against the defendants.

The court found that the defamation allegations were properly pleaded and granted judgment against the defendants based on previous findings.

The plaintiff was awarded $41,600 in special damages for loss of fee income.

The contempt proceedings were adjourned due to the defendants' failure to appear, and a bench warrant was issued for their arrest with discretion.

In two consolidated construction lien actions, both parties brought motions regarding procedural steps.

The plaintiff sought to amend a prior order to prevent the defendants from advancing new claims for deficiencies in their Scott schedules without leave, arguing the defendants failed to properly particularize their counterclaim.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding the defendants had sufficient time to define their counterclaim.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to provide particulars of its damages claim within 30 days, but dismissed the defendants' request for further productions.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action seeking the return of a $100,000 donation.

The plaintiffs alleged the donation was a conditional gift made for the sole purpose of purchasing a home for three young men with developmental disabilities, and claimed breach of contract and misrepresentation.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and utilized its fact-finding powers, concluding that the contemporaneous evidence and the parties' subsequent actions contradicted the plaintiffs' claim of a conditional agreement.

The court found the donation was made without strings attached and dismissed the action, awarding costs to the defendants.

Following a decision finding a binding agreement of purchase and sale for 48 residential building lots, the successful purchaser sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court awarded costs to the purchaser, applying partial indemnity rates up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity rates thereafter.

The court reduced the claimed hourly rates to reflect appropriate percentages of full indemnity rates and deducted time spent on an unissued statement of claim, fixing total costs at $62,770.92.

Following a summary judgment granting the plaintiffs $6,000 in damages for defamation, the plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $43,356.82.

The court considered the defendant's financial situation and the principle of proportionality, ultimately fixing costs at $10,000.

The respondent brought a motion to prohibit the applicants' counsel from appearing on a pending motion to quash a summons to witness, arguing that the counsel was the primary source of contentious evidence.

The respondent also sought to strike portions of the applicants' affidavits.

The court granted the motion to prohibit counsel from appearing, finding it improper for a lawyer to act as counsel when they are the source of important and contentious evidence, even if provided via information and belief.

The motion to strike the affidavits was dismissed as premature.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages after tripping and falling in a parking lot owned by the defendant.

She alleged that she tripped over an insufficiently marked and maintained speed bump.

The court found that the speed bump's markings complied with industry standards and provided adequate warning.

Furthermore, the plaintiff could not objectively prove what caused her fall, relying only on speculation after returning to the scene weeks later.

The action was dismissed.

Independent Counsel brought a Request for Directions seeking an order imposing strict privacy conditions on the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation regarding documents transferred from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

They argued the Centre was bound by the same federal privacy legislation as the Commission under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the Centre is not a federal government institution and is appropriately governed by Manitoba's privacy legislation and the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation Act, which strike an appropriate balance between truth-telling and privacy.

The respondents were successful on an appeal regarding a real estate transaction and sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The appellant argued for a significantly lower amount, citing an offer to settle and access to justice concerns.

The court rejected the appellant's arguments, finding the appeal had no merit and the appellant's actions in pursuing the litigation were abusive.

The court awarded the respondents their full requested costs of $22,441.23.

The moving party brought a motion for directions challenging the validity of his late mother's 2006 will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by his brother, the responding party.

The responding party brought a cross-motion to set aside or vary a preservation order previously granted without notice.

The court found that the moving party met the minimal evidentiary threshold required to call the will's validity into question and granted the order for directions.

The court also varied the preservation order to narrow its scope, finding that while the original order was too broad, the assets in dispute met the test for preservation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to reduce damages, remove causes of action, and add particulars, as well as to discontinue the action against one defendant.

The defendants did not oppose the amendments or discontinuance but sought costs thrown away and the continuation of a crossclaim.

The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend and discontinue, ordered the continuation of the crossclaim, and awarded the defendants $2,200 in costs thrown away plus $5,000 for the costs of the motion.

The defendant Wilford brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The corporate plaintiff argued it was impecunious and that the action was primarily driven by its principal, who was also a plaintiff.

The Master found that the corporate plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario and that its claims were weak.

Applying a holistic analysis, the Master concluded it was just to order security for costs to protect the defendant, fixing the amount at $12,500 up to the end of discoveries.

Following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiffs were awarded a forfeited $60,000 real estate deposit, the court determined the costs of the proceeding.

The plaintiffs sought $45,676.40 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the defendants argued for no costs.

Considering the plaintiffs' multiple unaccepted offers to settle, the defendants' discontinued $500,000 counterclaim, and the disproportionate litigation conduct by both sides, the court fixed costs at $25,000 payable to the plaintiffs.

The applicant municipality brought an application for a declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents for violating a zoning by-law by keeping multiple recreational trailers on their property for permanent residential seasonal use.

The respondents argued they had a legal non-conforming use under a previous by-law.

The court found that neither the previous nor the current zoning by-laws permitted the use of multiple recreational trailers as a main use on the property.

Finding a clear breach of the by-laws and no exceptional circumstances, the court granted the declaration and permanent injunction requiring the removal of the trailers.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 26.01 to amend his statement of claim for a third time in an action for defamation and negligence against his former spouse, the police, and the Children's Aid Society.

The proposed amendments sought damages for the adverse outcomes of family law proceedings, alleging they were tainted by the defendants' false accusations that the plaintiff was a terrorist.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the amendments raised statute-barred causes of action and constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the family law decisions.

The Master granted the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the amendments would fail, as they arguably pleaded a continuous course of damage rather than new causes of action, and the collateral attack issue was better left for trial.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering them to pay the final installment for a patio construction contract.

They argued the trial judge prejudged the case and erred by excluding the appellant husband from the courtroom during the respondent's testimony.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's preliminary comments and the arbitrary exclusion of a party in violation of Rule 52.06 created an appearance of unfairness.

A new trial was ordered.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing for approval of an infant settlement arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The court found the settlement amount reasonable but declined to approve it immediately due to procedural deficiencies.

The court required further evidence, including the 17-year-old minor's consent, alternative proposals for managing the settlement funds instead of paying them into court for seven months, a copy of the minutes of settlement, and a detailed breakdown of the solicitor-client account.

The motion was adjourned with the judge remaining seized.