Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage and for possession of the defendant's property, as well as to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant raised various defences, including claims that the property was on unceded indigenous land and that he held unredeemed certificates of deposit.

The court found the indigenous land defence untenable as the property was not on a reserve, and the certificate of deposit claim was barred by the ultimate limitation period.

The court granted summary judgment for possession, dismissed the counterclaim as frivolous and vexatious, but declined to make a vexatious litigant order as it required a separate application.

The applicants brought a motion seeking a finding that the respondents, Hanna Gajek and Katarzyna Krol, failed to comply with two prior court orders requiring disclosure of the assets and liabilities of the late Marek Krol's estate.

The court found that Katarzyna Krol had satisfied her disclosure obligations to the best of her ability, as she had no knowledge or possession of relevant documents.

However, the court found that Hanna Gajek had not fully complied with the orders, particularly regarding documents likely kept in a safe and details of joint bank accounts.

The motion was dismissed against Katarzyna Krol and allowed in part against the Estate of Hanna Gajek, with directions for further disclosure.

The defendants brought a motion to remove Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP as lawyers of record for the plaintiff, LaSalle Electrical Contractors Inc. Norton Rose also represented the third party, Jensen Building Ltd., in this action and a related construction lien action.

The defendants argued that Norton Rose was in a conflict of interest and could misuse confidential information obtained from the third party against the defendants.

The court granted the motion, finding a potential for conflict and mischief, and ordered Norton Rose removed as counsel for the plaintiff.

A cross-motion for consolidation and waiver of the implied undertaking rule was adjourned.

Following a summary trial where the plaintiffs were completely successful and awarded damages of $191,429.88, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that the $50,000 costs cap under Rule 76.12.1 applied, finding the action was commenced before the rule's effective date of January 1, 2020, despite later amendments.

The court declined the plaintiffs' request for full indemnity costs, maintaining its trial finding that substantial indemnity costs were appropriate due to the defendants' egregious and fraudulent conduct.

Costs were fixed at $95,000 for the main action and $25,000 for the construction lien action.

The defendants in a medical malpractice and wrongful death action brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the Family Law Act claims of the deceased's partner, arguing he did not meet the definition of a spouse.

The defendants also moved to remove him as the litigation guardian for the deceased's minor grandchildren.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the partner's spousal status based on conflicting evidence.

The court also dismissed the motion to remove the litigation guardian, finding him qualified, indifferent to the outcome, and not adverse in interest to the minors.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his action for delay.

The delay was caused by the plaintiff's former counsel, who suffered from severe depression and complicated grief following the death of his daughter, leading him to inadvertently neglect the file.

The court applied the contextual approach and the four Reid factors, finding that the plaintiff always intended to proceed, the delay was adequately explained by the solicitor's mental health issues, the motion was brought promptly once new counsel was appointed, and the defendant suffered no significant prejudice.

The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for over $25 million USD in a complex action involving allegations of breach of contract and conspiracy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a surfeit of genuine issues requiring a trial, including highly contested facts regarding pre-contract representations, alleged collusion, and the interpretation of multiple contracts created in a convoluted factual nexus.

The court concluded it would not be in the interests of justice to decide the action summarily.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment related to a commercial lease dispute.

The court applied the five-factor test from Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen and found that while the defendants moved relatively promptly, they failed to provide a plausible explanation for their default and lacked an arguable defence on the merits due to a prior agreement waiving their claims.

The defendants' motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff's motion to amend the default judgment to reflect a prior payment was granted, reducing the principal amount to $85,850.00.

The plaintiff leased a seven-year-old used vehicle from the defendant and subsequently experienced numerous mechanical issues.

The plaintiff brought an action for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract, alleging the defendant tampered with the odometer and failed to disclose the vehicle's true condition.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding no credible evidence of odometer tampering or misrepresentation.

The court held that the plaintiff leased the vehicle 'as is', declined to purchase an extended service plan, and failed to prove that the mechanical issues were present at the time of the lease or caused a subsequent collision.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the defendants for default on a third mortgage.

The defendants argued there was a genuine issue for trial, claiming an oral agreement that the mortgage was merely security for construction work and no payments were required.

The court held that evidence of the oral agreement was inadmissible under both the Statute of Frauds and the parol evidence rule, as it directly contradicted the clear terms of the written mortgage and guarantee.

Finding no genuine issue for trial, the court granted summary judgment for the principal amount and ordered a reference to determine the remaining amounts due.

The court issued an amendment to a previous costs endorsement to correct an omission.

The original endorsement failed to include HST on the awarded fees of $55,500.00.

The endorsement was amended to add $7,215.00 for HST on fees, bringing the total costs award to $64,729.66.

The plaintiff in a slip and fall action brought a motion to compel the attendance of a specific store manager for examination for discovery on behalf of the corporate defendants.

The defendants refused to produce the manager, providing medical evidence that she was suffering from terminal cancer and was medically unfit to attend.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants met the heavy onus required to excuse a selected corporate representative from discovery on medical grounds.

Costs were awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff commercial tenant and defendant condominium corporation settled an action regarding the use of common spaces via minutes of settlement.

The plaintiff brought a motion to have the minutes of settlement issued and entered as a Court Order due to ongoing disputes.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the minutes contained an arbitration clause intended to resolve future disputes and explicitly required the action to be dismissed without costs.

The court directed that an assessment officer assess costs if the parties could not agree, as provided in the settlement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to extend the time for service of their statement of claim and to validate service, after serving the claim approximately six months past the deadline.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the delay was tactical and prejudiced their ability to defend the action.

The court applied the test from Rowland v. Wright Medical Technology Canada Ltd., finding that the plaintiffs met their onus to demonstrate no prejudice resulted from the brief delay, as relevant documents were preserved and witnesses remained available.

The motion was granted, service was validated, and the plaintiffs were awarded costs of $10,000.

Following a successful appeal that reduced the plaintiff's damages award in a construction lien trial, the court considered written submissions on the costs awarded by the Master.

The Master had originally awarded the plaintiff $485,000 in costs based on an erroneous application of Rule 49.

The court found that the plaintiff's second offer to settle implicitly withdrew its first offer, and since the reduced damages award was less than the second offer, Rule 49 did not apply.

The court reduced the Master's costs award to $236,500 on a partial indemnity scale to reflect proportionality and the reduced damages award.

The self-represented defendant emailed the court requesting to reschedule a case management conference set for September 14, 2018, without providing reasons for her unavailability.

The case management judge noted the defendant's repeated failure to follow directions to explain scheduling conflicts, characterizing her conduct as unacceptable passive-aggressive behaviour.

The court ordered the defendant to immediately provide particulars of any prior court commitment or other justification, failing which the conference would proceed as scheduled.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against National Bank, Visa, and Mastercard for settlement purposes.

The action alleges the defendants conspired to fix or increase Merchant Discount Fees and Interchange Fees paid by merchants accepting Visa or Mastercard.

The court found that all criteria for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met and granted the motion for certification for settlement purposes, approving the notice and notice plan.

The plaintiff motorcyclist brought a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability following a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant driver had made a sudden left turn into the plaintiff's path of travel.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and utilized its fact-finding powers to resolve conflicts in the affidavit evidence.

The court found the defendant solely liable for the accident, concluding he failed to ensure the turn could be made in safety and failed to see the plaintiff who was there to be seen.

The court found no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

The applicants sought to enforce an agreement of purchase and sale for a condominium unit.

The respondent attempted to terminate the agreement due to construction delays and changes to the floor plan, offering to sell the unit back to the applicants at a higher price.

The court found that the respondent had no unilateral right to terminate the agreement and that the contract was not frustrated.

The court granted specific performance, finding the property unique and the respondent's conduct unjustified.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes and to approve a national settlement regarding alleged exhaust leaks in certain Ford Explorer vehicles.

The court approved the discontinuance of claims regarding other Ford models, added a new representative plaintiff, and certified the class for settlement.

Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved the settlement, the notice plan, and honoraria for the representative plaintiffs.