Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The applicants purchased a Finnish mining company from the respondents under a share purchase agreement containing tax indemnities.

Post-closing, the Finnish tax authority reassessed the company's pre-closing tax years, disallowing deductions and effectively eliminating tax loss carry forwards that the applicants had intended to use in post-closing years.

The applicants sought indemnification for the reassessed taxes and the resulting increased tax burden in post-closing years.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the reassessment breached the respondents' unqualified warranty that there were no grounds for reassessment.

The court further held that the increased taxes in post-closing years were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the reassessment and fell within the scope of the indemnities.

The respondents were ordered to pay the amounts already collected by the tax authority, with the remainder to be determined after the conclusion of Finnish tax appeals.

The applicant property owner brought a motion for leave to amend its notice of application regarding a disputed agreement of purchase and sale.

The proposed amendments sought to add a fixed closing date and to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) that the respondent developer had obtained in a separate action.

The court granted leave to add the fixed closing date, as the respondent alleged no prejudice.

However, the court refused leave to add the request to discharge the CPL, finding that the proposed amendment failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and constituted an improper collateral attack on an order made in a separate proceeding.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the successful defendant sought costs of $78,104.24 on a full indemnity basis.

The defendant, a lawyer, claimed costs for his own time spent as a self-represented litigant before retaining counsel.

The court found that full indemnity costs were not appropriate and that the time claimed by the defendant for his own work was excessive and not fully attributable to lost remunerative activity.

The court fixed the defendant's costs at $45,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff brought a class action alleging that the defendant insurer wrongfully deprived insureds of trip cancellation benefits by offering non-monetary compensation such as credits or vouchers.

On consent, the court certified a single threshold common issue regarding the interpretation of the travel insurance policy and dismissed the claim against the parent bank.

The court found that certifying a single threshold common issue, with the possibility of further common issues later, was an efficient procedure akin to a Rule 21 motion.

The plaintiff was struck by a vehicle and claimed complex injuries including a traumatic brain injury.

The plaintiff served three expert reports and agreed to attend three corresponding defence medical examinations.

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a fourth examination with a neurologist.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff had been treated by multiple neurologists who might be called as participant experts at trial to offer opinions on causation.

To ensure trial fairness and level the playing field, the defendant was entitled to a responding neurological examination.

The court held an initial case conference and issued a timetable on consent for the plaintiff's upcoming motion for leave under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The plaintiff moved for approval of a $15 million settlement in a class action against Ontario concerning the practice of youth segregation in provincial youth justice facilities.

Class counsel also sought approval of a $4.05 million fee and a $15,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant litigation risks regarding whether youth segregation amounted to unconstitutional solitary confinement.

The court approved the settlement, the counsel fees, and the honorarium.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for an order appointing an appraiser pursuant to section 128(5) of the Insurance Act and compelling the plaintiff insureds to participate in the appraisal pursuant to Statutory Condition 11 of the policy.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing the appraisal process would not be cost-effective and would not resolve the broader issues in the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the wording of Statutory Condition 11 is mandatory and requires an appraisal whenever there is a disagreement as to the value of the property insured or the amount of the loss, regardless of the extent of the disagreement or the existence of other issues.

The applicant insurer sought a declaration that the respondent insurer was required to contribute equally to the defence and indemnification of a pharmacist in an underlying negligence action.

Both insurers had issued policies covering the pharmacist, and both policies contained 'other insurance' clauses stating their coverage was excess to any other valid insurance.

The court found that both policies provided primary coverage for the same risk at the same layer.

Applying the principles of equitable contribution, the court concluded that the competing 'other insurance' clauses were irreconcilable.

Consequently, the respondent was ordered to share equally in the costs of defending and indemnifying the insured.

The plaintiff manufacturing company sued its freight broker and transport carrier for the $206,509 cost of cleaning up a chemical spill.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants breached a 'direct drive' delivery contract by picking up other loads, which blocked access to the plaintiff's shipment and forced the plaintiff's employee to unload a skid of white paint.

The employee punctured the paint tote with a forklift and then washed the spilled paint into a storm sewer.

The court found the freight broker breached the direct drive contract, but dismissed the action because the damages were caused solely by the plaintiff's employee's negligence in operating the forklift and responding to the spill, which was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment following the termination of his employment while on medical leave.

The defendant failed to file a Statement of Defence and was noted in default.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded the 60-year-old plaintiff, who had 30 years of service and a disability, 24 months' pay in lieu of notice.

The claims for lost benefits, vacation pay, and costs were adjourned for further evidence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing for default judgment against the defendants, who had been noted in default in an action for breach of trust and unjust enrichment regarding a property dispute.

The court noted that it was unclear whether the defendants had been served with the motion record.

Exercising its discretion under Rule 19.02(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court adjourned the motion and ordered the plaintiffs to serve the motion record on the defendants, emphasizing that it is better practice to notify defendants that a claim is about to be considered for judgment.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the registration and enforcement in Ontario of a final judgment granted by a Florida court.

The underlying action involved a real estate investment in Florida, which the parties settled.

The defendants defaulted on the settlement agreement, leading to the Florida judgment.

The defendants did not defend the Ontario action.

The court found that the Florida court properly assumed jurisdiction and that the judgment was not contrary to natural justice or public policy.

The motion was granted, and the foreign judgment was recognized and enforced.

The applicant insurer brought an application without notice to pay additional life insurance proceeds into court pursuant to section 214 of the Insurance Act.

The insurer had previously paid $50,000 into court but subsequently determined an additional $25,000 was owing on the policy.

Due to adverse claims on the proceeds, the court granted leave for the insurer to pay the additional funds into court, discharging the insurer to the extent of the payment.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement secured by a consent to judgment for $39,000.

The defendant defaulted after paying $1,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment on the consent.

The court granted the motion, ordering judgment for the remaining $38,000 plus $320 in costs.

The plaintiff commenced a personal injury action in 2000 after allegedly being struck by a falling box in the defendant's store.

Over 20 years, the action was marked by extreme delay, non-compliance with court orders, and the plaintiff's failure to attend defence medical examinations.

When the plaintiff failed to attend the peremptory trial date in September 2021, the defendant moved to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff had clear notice of the trial date and provided no explanation for her absence.

The action was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs fixed at $82,725.88.

The trial in this matter was scheduled to commence on September 20, 2021.

Due to health issues involving counsel for the defendants, the court adjourned the trial to January 10, 2022, making the new date peremptory to the defendants.

The court also made orders regarding the re-drafting of pleadings and the production of outstanding documents by the defendants.

The issue of the plaintiffs' costs thrown away was reserved to the trial judge.

The plaintiffs previously obtained an ex parte interim Mareva injunction against the defendants.

The defendants retained counsel and sought time to respond, while filing an affidavit stating the injunction had frozen their business and personal accounts, preventing the operation of their mortgage brokerage and payment of personal expenses.

On consent, the court extended the injunction to September 20, 2021, and varied its terms to exempt the business accounts and allow the defendants to access personal accounts for living expenses.

The applicant, a person under disability following a catastrophic motor vehicle accident, sought court approval of a $675,000 all-inclusive settlement for statutory accident benefits.

The court approved the settlement amount as being in the applicant's best interests.

However, the court found the proposed contingency fee of $164,714.87 to be unreasonable given the moderate-to-low risk and the limited time docketed.

The court reduced the approved legal fees to $70,000.

The plaintiff contractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant owner for unpaid renovation work on a commercial condominium unit.

The parties disputed seven claims for extra work and a 10% discount clause for delay inserted by the owner.

The court found that the extra work was outside the scope of the contract and implicitly authorized, awarding the plaintiff $5,755.09 for the extras.

The court also held that the 10% discount clause was an unenforceable penalty, as it was not a genuine pre-estimate of damages, and dismissed the owner's claim for delay damages.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $12,535.09.