Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

Two applications were brought to determine the boundary between properties in Lot 16, Concessions 9 and 10 in the Township of Gordon.

The applicant Walker claimed ownership based on mathematical survey lines, while the respondents and the applicant Bainborough argued that an antique fence marked the true boundary.

The court applied the hierarchy of boundary evidence, finding that the historical fence, which had been accepted by previous landowners for decades, was the best evidence of the original boundary.

The court also found that Walker's claim was statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act.

Walker's application was dismissed, and the fence was declared the true boundary.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add a claim for punitive damages and allegations of spoliation of evidence following a pedestrian motor vehicle accident allegedly involving street racing.

The court granted leave to add the punitive damages claim and spoliation allegations concerning the sale of a vehicle and replacement of an engine, finding them to be issues worthy of trial.

However, the court denied leave to add spoliation allegations regarding electronic communications and a failure to remain at the scene, citing a lack of factual foundation.

Following the dismissal of a proposed $240 billion class action regarding a data breach, the successful defendants sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued costs should be limited to a partial indemnity scale for a pleadings motion.

The court found that the plaintiffs' unsubstantiated allegations of professional misconduct against defence counsel, combined with their egregious violations of pleading rules and massive expansion of the claim, justified costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded $725,000 to Capital One and $500,000 to Amazon Web.

Following a summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff subcontractor against the defendant general contractor, the court determined the costs of the motion.

The plaintiff had made a settlement offer that it beat at the hearing, entitling it to substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that the simplified procedure costs cap applied, noting the parties had engaged in a hybrid process outside of Rule 76.

The plaintiff was awarded total costs of $62,659.28.

The defendants sought costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff argued that he brought the action in good faith, suffers from a head injury, and has limited income.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants at $10,000 all inclusive on a partial indemnity basis.

Following a successful motion for an urgent interlocutory injunction against picketing union members, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $110,000.

The defendants argued for no or nominal costs, citing labour injunction jurisprudence.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $55,000 plus disbursements, finding that while the picketers' conduct was aggressive and crossed the line, it did not warrant the judicial disapproval reflected in substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time for service of a statement of claim and to increase the prayer for relief to $10,000,000.

The plaintiff was uninsured when his vehicle was struck by the defendants in a private parking lot.

Relying on mistaken legal advice that uninsured motorists cannot sue for torts in private lots, the plaintiff's former counsel issued but did not serve the claim.

Years later, new counsel discovered the unserved claim and served it.

The court granted the extension, finding no actual prejudice to the defendants because their insurer had extensively investigated the plaintiff's injuries through his accident benefits claim, and the plaintiff adequately explained the delay as reliance on faulty legal advice.

Representative Counsel for investor claimants in a winding-up proceeding sought approval of a $40 million settlement distribution scheme and $6 million in professional fees.

Two investors objected, arguing for a flat-fee allocation of costs rather than a pro rata deduction, and one objected to the fee amount.

The court approved the pro rata allocation as fair and equitable, noting it avoids arbitrary distinctions between investors.

The court also approved the $6 million fee, finding it reasonable given the significant risks assumed, the excellent results achieved, and the 1.6 multiplier on docketed time.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion under Rule 30.10 for the production of financial records held by third-party financial institutions relating to the defendants, alleging a complex procurement fraud scheme.

The responding defendants opposed the production of personal banking records but consented to the production of certain corporate records.

The court dismissed the contested portions of the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the requested documents were relevant to a material issue or that it would be unfair to proceed to discovery without them, applying the Ballard factors.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an extension of time to complete the examination for discovery of the representative of the defendant insurance company.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff had exceeded the seven-hour limit under Rule 31.05.1 and sought to strike the affidavit sworn by a staff member of the plaintiff's counsel.

The court declined to strike the affidavit, finding it appropriate for a procedural motion.

The court granted the plaintiff an additional 1.5 hours for discovery, noting the complexity of the 17-year business relationship and the conduct of defence counsel, but declined to award costs due to the plaintiff's failure to address time limits in the discovery plan.

The plaintiff brought a motion for substituted service of a statement of claim for an unpaid debt.

The court noted that the amount claimed was within the financial limits of the Small Claims Court and the defendant resided outside the jurisdiction where the action was brought.

Citing previous jurisprudence, the court raised concerns that suing out-of-jurisdiction defendants in the Superior Court for Small Claims amounts may constitute an abuse of process.

The court directed the plaintiff to provide written submissions on why the action should not be transferred to the Small Claims Court before deciding on the motion for substituted service.

The applicant was successful on the merits of its application and sought costs on a full indemnity basis, relying on an indemnity clause in the operating agreement.

The court held that the contractual phrase 'all costs' does not necessarily dictate the scale of costs, which remains discretionary under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, calculating the amount using the 61% ratio presented by the respondent's own costs outline, resulting in an all-inclusive award of $311,228.77.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants for alleged breaches of section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms relating to his treatment after immigrating to Canada as a refugee in 1957.

The plaintiff had previously brought an action based on the same facts, which was dismissed in 2019 due to the expiry of the limitation period.

The court initiated a Rule 2.1 review to determine if the second action was an abuse of process.

The court held that the doctrine of res judicata and cause of action estoppel prevented the plaintiff from relitigating the same factual matrix, even with a new Charter claim.

The action was dismissed as an abuse of process.

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

The court found that full indemnity was not appropriate because the action was not a SLAPP suit, and instead awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Noting that both parties engaged in an unnecessary 'deep dive' into the evidence, the court fixed the costs at $130,000 all-inclusive, payable in two installments.

The plaintiffs, a genetic testing company and its director, sued the defendants for defamation over a magazine article criticizing their non-invasive prenatal paternity test.

The article alleged the test was dangerous, unreliable, and prone to error.

The court found the article was defamatory but dismissed the action, holding that the defendants successfully established the defences of justification, qualified privilege, fair comment, and responsible communication.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to properly validate their test according to accepted scientific methodology, rendering the test unreliable and the article's claims substantially true.

In a long-running class action regarding defective temporomandibular joint implants, the parties brought ten procedural motions primarily concerning document production and pre-trial examinations.

The plaintiff sought further searches for key historical documents, alleging spoliation by the defendant, while the defendant sought forensic examination of documents produced by the plaintiff's key witness, alleging fabrication.

Balancing the need for discovery against proportionality and an impending peremptory trial date, the Master ordered targeted physical and electronic searches by the defendant, forensic inspection of disputed documents, and specific pre-trial examinations of key witnesses.

The plaintiff, a former Service Advisor at a Canadian Tire store, sued his former employer and others for wrongful dismissal, malicious prosecution, defamation, and other torts after he was fired and arrested for allegedly installing KGB spyware on his manager's computer.

The plaintiff claimed he was framed by the defendants either because he refused to 'upsell' or as a decoy for a separate credit card pin pad fraud.

The court rejected the plaintiff's conspiracy theories, finding that the employer proved on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff installed the spyware, which constituted just cause for dismissal.

The court also dismissed all tort claims, finding the defendants had reasonable grounds to call the police, the police independently decided to lay charges, and the defendants' conduct was not malicious, outrageous, or defamatory.

The applicant unit owner sought an assessment of legal fees paid by the respondent condominium corporation and charged to her unit as common expenses following compliance proceedings.

She also sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the enforcement of a lien on her unit and a transfer of the assessment to Toronto.

The court held that the applicant was not entitled to an assessment as of right and had to establish special circumstances.

The court found special circumstances only for the fees related to a motion for leave to appeal, ordering an assessment for those fees alone.

The motions for an injunction and venue transfer were dismissed.

Following a jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded $62,500 in general damages for injuries sustained in a rear-end motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court reviewed the medical evidence and surveillance footage, noting inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony and evidence of her ability to perform daily activities.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove her injuries substantially interfered with her usual activities of daily living.

The defendants' motion was granted, barring the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss.

During a medical malpractice trial concerning an ulnar nerve injury sustained during orthopedic surgery, the defendants objected to the plaintiffs' expert orthopedic surgeon testifying on causation and standard of care issues not expressly stated in his written reports.

The court ruled that under Rule 53.03, an expert cannot testify on matters that open up a new field not mentioned in their report, nor can the court be left to infer opinions.

The expert was precluded from offering opinions on causation and the standard of care for the initial consultation, as these were not clearly articulated in his reports.