Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety, or alternatively, to strike specific paragraphs.

The plaintiff, a former union president, claimed constructive dismissal, breach of contract, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and defamation following a prolonged conflict with the defendants.

The court declined to strike the claim as a whole, finding it provided a logical presentation of the conflict and could be responded to.

However, the court struck several specific paragraphs that contained evidence, irrelevant historical facts, or immaterial references to non-parties, granting the plaintiff leave to amend.

The applicants were successful on a motion regarding the procedure for DNA testing to determine if the respondent's child was the biological child of the deceased.

The applicants sought costs of $17,485.82 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis.

The court found the applicants were the successful parties and their offer to settle was reasonable, but concluded the costs claimed were excessive given the narrow issue and the modest amount in dispute ($62,841.54).

The court fixed the applicants' costs at $7,213 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant and respondents both provided professional liability insurance to a nurse facing a disciplinary complaint from the College of Nurses of Ontario.

Both insurers acknowledged a duty to defend.

The applicant sought an order that the respondents share the defence costs equally, arguing their 'other insurance' clauses were irreconcilable.

The court found that the 'other insurance' clause in the applicant's policy only applied to claims for compensatory damages ('professional incidents'), not disciplinary complaints.

Therefore, the clauses could be read together, making the applicant the primary insurer for the disciplinary complaint.

The application was dismissed.

The third parties brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to disclose their real estate lawyer's files relating to the purchase of their property.

The plaintiffs opposed, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the plaintiffs' former counsel had previously undertaken to produce the files and had thereby waived any claim to privilege.

The motion was granted and the plaintiffs were ordered to produce the files.

The plaintiffs brought a motion on consent for an order approving the discontinuance of a proposed class action without costs.

The action alleged that the defendants breached a duty to warn about the risks of excessive bleeding associated with the anticoagulant drug Pradaxa.

Following the dismissal of the certification motion and subsequent appeals, the action remained dormant.

The court approved the discontinuance under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding no reason to refuse the request and no need to impose terms.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a preservation order regarding shares in a start-up company, alleging they owned two-thirds of the shares held by the defendant.

The defendant claimed sole ownership and had recently sold a portion of the shares.

The court found the plaintiffs met the test for a preservation order under Rule 45.

However, to mitigate prejudice from fluctuating share prices, the court ordered that the defendant could sell the shares but must pay the proceeds into court.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to maintain their action under the Business Names Act after it was automatically stayed due to their failure to register their business name.

They also sought to deliver a reply to the defendant's amended statement of defence.

The court granted leave to maintain the action, as the defendant did not oppose it.

However, the court restricted the proposed reply, finding that many paragraphs improperly raised new issues or responded to unamended portions of the defence.

The defendant was awarded costs for its prior motion to amend, costs thrown away due to the trial adjournment, and costs of the current motion.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to declare that a default judgment debt owed by the defendant, a corporate director, survived his bankruptcy under s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The defendant had breached the trust provisions of the Construction Lien Act by allowing construction financing funds to be used for non-project purposes.

The court found that the defendant, as a fiduciary, misappropriated trust funds through willful blindness and failure to oversee the corporation's finances.

The court declared that the judgment debt of $181,133.23 plus costs survived the bankruptcy.

The plaintiff tenant entered into a 10-year commercial lease for a café in a new condominium development.

The tenant later abandoned the premises and sued the defendant landlord for negligent misrepresentation, alleging the landlord falsely represented the occupancy dates of surrounding buildings and the availability of convenient, free customer parking.

The court found the landlord negligently misrepresented the parking situation by failing to disclose that a shared facilities committee and condominium concierges would control access, creating significant barriers for retail customers.

The court held that the entire agreement clause in the lease did not preclude the tort claim because it did not address free customer parking.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for operating losses and build-out costs, and the landlord's counterclaim for breach of lease was dismissed.

The applicants, who operated a cannabis retail store in their condominium units, sought to stay a final consent order requiring them to permanently cease their cannabis business.

The applicants argued that a recent condominium owners' meeting, which rejected their request to repeal the condominium's rule prohibiting cannabis sales, was procedurally flawed.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to meet the stringent Carlisle test for staying a final order, as the condominium corporation's conduct was not oppressive or an abuse of process.

The court also found that the applicants failed to meet the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

The defendant insurer brought a Rule 2.1.01 application to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs' claims arose from a motor vehicle accident, subsequent denial of statutory accident benefits, and alleged improper surveillance.

The plaintiffs also challenged the constitutional validity of certain Insurance Act provisions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the constitutional challenge and the claims could not be properly assessed or struck out using the limited summary procedure under Rule 2.1.01, as it was not the clearest of cases.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for defamation over negative online reviews regarding window installation.

Faced with an anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiffs attempted to discontinue the action.

The court held that the statutory stay under s. 137.1(5) of the Courts of Justice Act was triggered when the defendants delivered a requisition to attend Civil Practice Court, rendering the discontinuance ineffective.

Applying the Pointes framework, the court found the reviews related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiffs failed to show there were no valid defences, and the action was a SLAPP suit brought for an improper purpose.

The action was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay $164,186.76 in full indemnity costs and $2,500 in damages.

The plaintiffs previously obtained a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from publishing defamatory statements about them.

The defendant was subsequently found in contempt of court for six separate breaches of the injunction by broadcasting hateful and defamatory statements.

At the sentencing hearing, the court considered the defendant's complete lack of remorse, his ongoing attacks on the rule of law, and the hate-motivated nature of the breaches.

The court sentenced the defendant to 18 months in prison, consisting of three consecutive months for each of the six acts of contempt.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a compliance order under the Condominium Act against the owner and occupants of a unit due to escalating, threatening, and harassing behaviour by the occupants.

The occupants, who were the daughter and granddaughter of the owner, engaged in conduct including death threats, racial slurs, and excessive noise, causing fear among residents and staff.

The court found the occupants violated section 117 of the Act and the condominium's rules.

Given the severity of the conduct and failure to alter behaviour despite warnings, the court ordered the occupants to vacate the unit within 30 days and awarded full indemnity costs to the applicant.

The plaintiff was partially successful on a motion to compel a further and better affidavit of documents and sought partial indemnity costs of $4,575.87.

The defendants argued for 50% of the claimed costs due to divided success.

The court rejected a strict mathematical reduction for divided success but noted the plaintiff's evidentiary failings on the unsuccessful relief.

Costs were fixed at $3,748.82 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicants sought an order granting them possessory title to a half-acre strip of land adjacent to their property, which was registered to the deceased respondent.

The applicants had mistakenly believed the strip was part of their property since 1978 and had continuously posted 'no trespassing' signs.

The court found that the applicants had established open, notorious, continuous, and exclusive possession for over 10 years prior to the land's conversion to the Land Titles system in 2000.

The court applied the mutual mistake exception to the inconsistent use requirement and granted the application, vesting title in the applicants.

The applicant estate sought a declaration that the respondent insurer had a duty to defend it in an underlying action arising from a fatal ammonia leak.

The insurer denied coverage, relying on a 'Total Pollution Exclusion' in the commercial general liability policy.

The court found the exclusion clause ambiguous, as it failed to define 'pollution' and could reasonably be interpreted by the insured as applying only to traditional environmental pollution, not an accidental indoor leak of ammonia during routine mechanical work.

The application was granted, and the insurer was ordered to defend the estate.

The respondent, Google Canada, brought a motion in writing on consent to dismiss the application against it and to dismiss the applicant's motion to add proposed respondents.

The court adjourned the motion, finding several procedural deficiencies.

Specifically, the underlying application and motion were previously stayed and the stay had not been lifted, the moving party failed to provide necessary evidence or copies of the originating processes, and there was no basis to proceed without notice to the other named respondents.

The defendants, a lawyer and his firm, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's professional negligence action as statute-barred.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants negligently failed to perfect a construction lien, resulting in the loss of its secured position.

The plaintiff argued it did not discover the claim until the conclusion of the debtor's bankruptcy proceedings when it became clear no funds would be recovered.

The court held that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known it had suffered a loss and that a civil action was legally appropriate by October 2014, when it was advised the lien had expired.

The bankruptcy proceeding was not an alternative dispute resolution process that delayed the limitation period.

The action, commenced in 2019, was statute-barred and dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiffs in an action alleging bad faith and negligence by the insurers.

The court found that the defendants met their initial burden under Rule 56.01(1)(d) as the plaintiffs were corporations with insufficient assets in Ontario.

The burden shifted to the plaintiffs, who failed to prove impecuniosity due to incomplete financial disclosure and undisclosed real estate purchases.

The plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate a good chance of success on the merits of their bad faith claim.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post security for costs in installments totaling $65,000.