Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against major producers and retailers of packaged bread, as well as their parent companies, alleging a 16-year price-fixing conspiracy.

The court certified the action against the producer and retailer defendants on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of packaged bread.

However, the court refused to certify the claims against the parent companies, finding no material facts pleaded to support their involvement.

The court also refused to certify claims on behalf of 'umbrella purchasers' (those who bought fresh bread or packaged bread from non-defendants), finding no plausible methodology to prove that the price-fixing of packaged bread caused an actionable increase in the prices of those non-competing or diverse products.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant had been granted two extensions but failed to close, and the plaintiff subsequently resold the property to another buyer at a lower price.

The court granted summary judgment, awarding the plaintiff damages for the difference in purchase price, specific incurred costs, and six months of foregone interest on a vendor-take-back mortgage, offset by the defendant's forfeited deposit.

The applicants sought a declaration that they had fully repaid a commercial loan to the respondent and an order preventing the respondent from exercising its right to convert the debt into shares.

The applicants had attempted to repay the loan via a wire transfer to the personal account of the respondent's principal, as the respondent had refused to provide wire instructions and insisted on strict compliance with the loan agreement.

The court found that the applicants failed to repay the loan in accordance with the strict terms of the agreement.

Consequently, the applicants' application was dismissed, and the respondent's cross-application to enforce its conversion rights was granted.

The plaintiffs sought judicial approval of settlement agreements totaling $7.9 million with seven defendant groups in multiple class actions alleging price-fixing in the global automotive parts industry.

The court also considered the approval of a distribution protocol, discontinuances and dismissals against certain defendants, representative plaintiff honoraria, and class counsel's 25% contingency fees.

The court found the settlements, distribution protocol, and fees to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and granted all requested approvals.

The plaintiff accountant joined the defendant accounting firm under an unwritten resource-sharing or partnership arrangement.

After the relationship broke down, the plaintiff sued for unpaid compensation and the return of a capital contribution, while the defendants counterclaimed for misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and defamation.

The court found an implied agreement for compensation based on the parties' conduct and awarded the plaintiff $71,223 for unpaid 2014 compensation plus the return of her $40,000 capital contribution.

However, the court also found that the plaintiff defamed the defendants by calling them 'crooks' to a client, awarding the defendants $30,000 on their counterclaim.

The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality after slipping and falling on ice.

The initial notices of claim provided to the municipality inaccurately described the location of the fall.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred due to the deficient notice.

The court found that while the issue of prejudice to the municipality was a genuine issue for trial, the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the deficient notice, as he did not provide evidence from family members who were present at the time of the fall.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The defendant Township brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for defamation, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The action arose after the Township posted unsolicited, unvetted, and allegedly defamatory public comments about the plaintiffs' proposed farm brewery on its website.

The court found the breach of fiduciary duty claim did not arise from an expression and could proceed.

The negligence claim was dismissed for lacking substantial merit.

The defamation claim was allowed to proceed, as the court found it had substantial merit, the Township's defences lacked a real prospect of success, and the public interest in allowing the claim to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the unvetted, vitriolic public comments.

The plaintiff brought a motion to consolidate two Hamilton applications regarding the administration of their late father's estate with a related Toronto action.

The plaintiff and her brother, the defendant, are co-executors and sole beneficiaries of the estate, and their relationship has irrevocably broken down.

The court granted the motion, converting the applications into actions and consolidating them with the Toronto action, finding that the proceedings arise from the same series of transactions and that consolidation would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an undefended application against the respondent unit owners and their occupant for egregious behaviour that disturbed the quiet enjoyment of the property.

After a previous order required the occupant to vacate the unit and stay away from the property, the applicant sought a declaration against the unit owners for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure their occupant complied with the Condominium Act and the condominium's rules.

The court granted the requested declaration and awarded costs to the applicant.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion under Rule 30.10 for the production of financial records from non-party financial institutions relating to the defendant Snowball.

The action involves an alleged $23 million fraud scheme manipulating the plaintiff's procurement processes.

Snowball, a former employee, opposed the motion, arguing the records were not relevant, production was not necessary before discovery, and it would violate her privacy rights.

The court found the records were highly relevant to tracing the defrauded funds and assessing liability, and that pre-discovery production was necessary for the forensic accountants to complete their investigation.

The court also rejected the privacy arguments, finding no constitutional or statutory protection that would override the open court principle and the need for disclosure.

The motion was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against TransUnion arising from a data breach where hackers accessed the credit profiles of 37,444 individuals.

The plaintiff alleged intrusion upon seclusion, negligence, and breach of provincial privacy statutes.

The court certified the negligence and certain provincial privacy statute claims, finding they disclosed a cause of action and met the certification criteria.

However, the court refused to certify the intrusion upon seclusion claim, as binding authority established it does not apply to database defendants for hacker attacks, and struck claims under the privacy statutes of Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, and British Columbia for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The applicant insurer brought a motion to compel the respondent insured to attend an examination under oath and produce cell tower and banking records following a vehicle theft claim.

The insurer suspected the insured misrepresented her residential address.

During the hearing, the insured agreed to attend the examination, so the court adjourned that request sine die.

The court dismissed the request for documentary production, finding the insurer's demands for months of location and financial data to be abusive, a fishing expedition, and an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence, alleging a failure to answer undertakings from earlier court orders regarding the production of financial statements, tax returns, and bank records.

The court found that the defendants had either answered or used best efforts to answer the undertakings, such as requesting documents from the CRA, accountants, and banks.

The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay $20,000 in costs due to the disproportionate expense incurred on the motion.

The defendant insurer brought a motion under Rule 32 for an order permitting its appraiser and experts to inspect the plaintiffs' property, which had suffered fire damage.

The plaintiffs opposed the timing of the inspection, arguing it should occur after the ongoing appraisal process concluded and that the request was delayed.

The court granted the motion, finding no undue delay and noting that the defendant had not inspected the property since the action commenced.

However, the court prohibited one of the defendant's proposed experts from attending due to allegations that they had previously caused additional damage to the property.

No costs were awarded.

The plaintiff brought a motion to validate service of a statement of claim on a corporate defendant and to extend the time for service and permit substituted service on an individual defendant via a non-party insurer.

The action arose from a motor vehicle accident.

The court validated service on the corporate defendant, finding it was properly served at its registered office address.

The court also granted the extension of time and substituted service on the individual defendant, finding no actual prejudice caused by the delay and that the proposed method of service would reasonably bring the claim to his attention.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to substitute the plaintiff's professional corporation for the plaintiff personally, after the expiry of the limitation period.

The action arose from a fire loss claim under an insurance policy.

The court found that naming the plaintiff personally rather than his professional corporation was a misnomer.

Applying the test for misnomer, the court granted the motion, noting that the defendants were aware of the proper plaintiff from the outset and suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The defendant physician in a medical negligence action brought a motion to strike paragraphs from the plaintiff's Statement of Claim.

The impugned paragraphs alleged prior negligence, discipline proceedings, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court struck the allegations regarding discipline proceedings and unparticularized prior negligence, finding they lacked probative value and violated the rule against similar fact evidence.

However, the court declined to strike the breach of fiduciary duty claims, finding sufficient material facts were pleaded regarding the physician's alleged failure to disclose his high complication rates and deficient skills.

Following the plaintiff's successful motion regarding a commercial lease renewal, the court received written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $34,339.46, arguing the defendant's conduct was unreasonable and high-handed.

The defendant argued each party should bear its own costs or that partial indemnity costs should be significantly reduced.

The court found the defendant's conduct was not so egregious as to warrant substantial indemnity costs and awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The parties brought motions under Rule 59.06(1) to amend a 2000 judgment regarding the removal of gates across a right-of-way.

The original judgment contained an error referring to a gate at the 'road' instead of the 'barn'.

The moving party sought a further amendment to clarify that a 'gate at the lake' was also excepted from removal, to reflect the original trial judge's manifest intention.

The court granted the motion, finding that the amendment was necessary to accurately reflect the original decision and prevent further disputes.

The applicant, a minority shareholder in a closely-held corporation operating a minor hockey tournament, sought an oppression remedy against the two other shareholders.

The respondents, dissatisfied with the applicant's performance, attempted to force him to sell his shares and subsequently dissolved the corporation to exclude him while continuing the business through a new entity.

The court found that the respondents breached their fiduciary duties to the corporation and acted oppressively by dissolving the corporation for the improper purpose of eliminating the applicant.

The court awarded the applicant special damages based on the agreed valuation formula and general damages for the oppressive conduct.