Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The plaintiff pedestrian was struck by the defendant's vehicle while crossing a street.

The defendant was found 100% liable.

The plaintiff had a highly complex pre-existing medical history, including chronic pain, sarcoidosis, and melanoma.

The court found the plaintiff suffered a mild traumatic brain injury and other injuries from the collision, which exacerbated his pre-existing conditions and impaired his ability to manage them.

The court assessed damages for the plaintiff and his family members, but reduced the total awards by 25% applying the crumbling skull principle, as the plaintiff would have been detrimentally affected by his pre-existing conditions regardless of the accident.

The injuries were found to meet the statutory threshold.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for damages relating to coating equipment allegedly sold during a bankruptcy proceeding.

The plaintiff claimed ownership of the equipment and alleged it was unlawfully sold by the defendants.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding possession but determined the ownership issue could be fairly adjudicated on the record.

Due to a lack of supporting documentation, contradictory evidence, and failure to answer undertakings, the court concluded the plaintiff did not own the equipment.

The motion was granted and the claim was dismissed.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff mortgagee's action for negligent distribution of insurance proceeds, arguing the claim was barred by a one-year limitation period in the policy and that the plaintiff suffered no damages.

The defendant alternatively sought to transfer the proceeding from Ottawa to Kingston.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether the insurer's conduct created a separate cause of action subject to the discoverability rule and whether the plaintiff suffered damages due to loss of control over the proceeds.

The court also dismissed the transfer motion, as the defendant failed to show Kingston was a significantly better venue.

The underlying action was administratively dismissed for delay by the registrar pursuant to Rule 48.14.

The defendants subsequently brought a motion seeking their costs of the action on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Rule 48.14 does not provide for costs upon an administrative dismissal, and that the defendants could have moved for dismissal under Rule 24 if they wished to seek costs.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's class action on a summary judgment motion, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $275,000.

The plaintiff argued the amount was unreasonable and duplicative of costs from an earlier certification motion, suggesting $50,000 was appropriate.

The court reviewed the principles of costs in class actions, noting the 'bet the company' nature of the litigation justified significant costs, but reduced the claimed amount due to excessive hours billed for preparation and cross-examination.

The court found no duplication and fixed costs at $215,000.

The defendants in a proposed price-fixing class action brought a motion for directions to pause the proceeding pending the release of a Supreme Court of Canada decision in a related case.

The plaintiffs opposed the delay.

The court found that it made sense to await the Supreme Court's decision for efficiency, but declined to vacate the scheduled motion dates immediately.

The court directed that most cross-examinations proceed, but deferred the cross-examination of the plaintiffs' expert economist until after the Supreme Court hearing.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action against the Toronto Police Services Board and two officers for alleged gratuitous assault and conspiracy, the defendants sought costs of $77,906.58 on a partial indemnity scale.

The court considered the complexity of the issues, the significant monetary claim, the importance of the matter to the officers, and the self-represented plaintiff's limited ability to pay.

Balancing these factors, the court fixed costs at $50,000 inclusive, payable by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued his insurance broker for negligence after his insurer denied coverage for a fire loss because the rental property had been vacant for over five years.

The defendant broker brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.

The court found that the broker had discharged its duty of care by sending letters explicitly warning the plaintiff about the vacancy exclusion.

Furthermore, the property's uninhabitable state constituted an unreported material change in risk.

The court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action after the defendant employer failed to defend.

The plaintiff, a 59-year-old general manager, was induced to leave secure employment and was terminated after 12 months with four weeks' working notice.

The court dismissed the claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering due to lack of medical evidence but awarded $10,000 in aggravated damages for the bad faith manner of dismissal.

The court also awarded 12 months' reasonable notice, resulting in $79,300 for wrongful dismissal, plus pre-judgment interest and costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant Metrolinx's jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff argued that because Metrolinx is a Crown agency, section 11 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act mandated a trial without a jury.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that section 11 applies only to proceedings against the Crown itself, not to proceedings against Crown agents or corporations.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application regarding failed contracts of purchase and sale for condominium units, the successful respondent sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $42,000.

The applicants argued no costs should be awarded as the application was not vexatious.

The court rejected the applicants' argument, finding the respondent was prima facie entitled to costs.

Applying the principles from Boucher, the court found the requested amount excessive and fixed partial indemnity costs at $22,386.23 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment where the plaintiffs were awarded $94,874.27, the plaintiffs sought costs.

The plaintiffs had made an offer to settle that triggered the costs consequences of Rule 49.10.

The court found the requested fees and hourly rates to be reasonable and proportionate.

Costs were fixed at $26,355.17 all inclusive, payable by the defendant.

The parties made written submissions on costs following a motion where the plaintiff sought leave to amend the Statement of Claim.

Success on the motion was divided; the plaintiff was unsuccessful on the primary issue but successful on two subsidiary issues.

The court found the defendants were the more successful parties but reduced their costs award by 50% to reflect their failure to consent to the amendments on which the plaintiff succeeded.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants $6,000 in costs.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the manufacturers of Cook IVC filters, alleging negligent design and failure to warn of risks associated with the medical devices.

The court dismissed the certification motion.

While the plaintiffs satisfied the identifiable class and representative plaintiff criteria, and pleaded a valid cause of action for failure to warn, they failed to plead a valid cause of action for design negligence.

Crucially, the court found no 'some basis in fact' for the existence of any common issues regarding either design defect or duty to warn, as the evidence did not identify a specific design defect or inadequacy in the warnings provided to physicians.

Consequently, the preferable procedure criterion was also not met.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to transfer a mortgage action from Hamilton to Toronto.

The mortgaged property and the defendants were located in Toronto, while the plaintiffs resided in Hamilton.

The court granted the motion, noting that under Rule 13.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Toronto Region Practice Direction, mortgage proceedings for property located in Toronto must be commenced in Toronto.

The interests of justice required the transfer.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding packaged bread sought court approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement with Bentham.

The defendants largely did not object, except regarding a clause allowing Bentham to satisfy any security for costs order via an undertaking rather than paying into court.

The court found the funding agreement necessary for access to justice, fair and reasonable to the class, and approved the agreement, including the provision allowing an undertaking for security for costs.

The plaintiffs appealed a Master's order allowing certain paragraphs in the defendants' Statement of Defence.

The plaintiffs argued the paragraphs improperly pleaded evidence rather than material facts, contrary to Rule 25.06.

The court upheld the Master's decision regarding paragraphs quoting emails and detailing facts for a fair comment defence.

However, the court struck a paragraph that quoted extensively from expert reports, finding it improperly pleaded evidence, and granted leave to amend.

The plaintiffs appealed a Master's decision upholding the defendant's refusal to answer certain questions at an examination for discovery.

The underlying action involved a claim for negligent security after the deceased was fatally shot outside the defendant's building.

The Superior Court of Justice partially allowed the appeal, finding that the Master made a palpable error in refusing production of patrol officer records and event permit information, as these were relevant to the plaintiffs' pleaded allegations of inadequate security.

The defendant was ordered to answer the specific questions for the one-year period prior to the incident.

The plaintiff contractor sued to enforce a construction lien after abandoning a home renovation project.

The defendant homeowners counterclaimed for breach of contract, negligence, and misrepresentation, seeking damages for the cost of completing the work and repairing deficiencies.

The court found that the contractor fundamentally breached the contract by abandoning the job and failing to deliver the promised quality of work.

The homeowners' claim for pre-contract misrepresentation was dismissed as unproven and redundant.

The court assessed the cost of completion and repair, offset it against the unpaid balance of the adjusted contract price, and awarded the homeowners $64,607.83 on their counterclaim.

The contractor's lien was ordered vacated.

The moving parties (respondents in the main application) brought a motion to transfer an application from Brampton to Toronto.

The responding party opposed the motion and requested that a related application issued in Toronto be transferred to Brampton.

The court applied the factors under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the related action and application were based on the same factual matrix and should be heard together to avoid duplicative proceedings.

The court dismissed the motion to transfer the Brampton application to Toronto and directed that a motion to transfer the Toronto application to Brampton be brought in the appropriate jurisdiction.