Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

In a supplemental endorsement following a successful derivative action, the court clarified the award of prejudgment interest and costs.

The court awarded prejudgment interest at the prescribed rate from the date the action was regularized.

The court rejected the third parties' request for full indemnity costs under the Business Corporations Act, confirming the previous partial indemnity award of $125,000, but clarified that the costs are payable solely to the third parties who funded the litigation, rather than jointly with the plaintiff company.

The defendants were previously granted leave to examine a non-party under Rule 31.10.

The court had initially expressed reluctance to award costs due to the poor quality of the defendants' motion materials, which made it difficult to determine the relevance of the proposed evidence.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $13,916.32.

The court awarded a reduced lump sum of $3,500, noting that while the defendants satisfied the rule's requirements on their second attempt, the costs award must reflect the inadequacy of their materials, which did not even include a factum.

The applicant homebuilder abandoned its application against the respondent warranty corporation shortly before the scheduled hearing, after the respondent had incurred significant costs preparing its defence.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the applicant unreasonably delayed abandoning the flawed application after an earlier injunction was dismissed.

The court agreed, finding the applicant's conduct in forcing the respondent to actively defend a doomed application warranted sanction.

Costs were fixed at $72,500 on a substantial indemnity scale.

The defendants brought a motion to amend their statement of defence in an action concerning the removal of a boundary tree during construction.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the amendments, arguing they constituted a withdrawal of admissions regarding the tree's location, would cause non-compensable prejudice due to an expired limitation period, and included untenable defences.

The court allowed most of the amendments, finding the original statements about the tree's location were mis-pleadings rather than intentional admissions, and that the plaintiff would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

However, the court refused leave to add paragraphs alleging defamation and bad faith, finding them vexatious and lacking sufficient particulars.

The plaintiff developer brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchasers for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The defendants failed to close the transaction after requesting multiple extensions and failing to secure financing.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding alleged misrepresentations and property valuation.

The plaintiff was awarded $381,971.72 in damages, representing the difference in resale price and carrying costs, plus $22,000 in costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to conditionally strike the defendant's jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a 2008 motor vehicle accident.

The trial had previously resulted in a mistrial in January 2020 due to the plaintiff's health crisis.

Citing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting backlog of civil jury trials in Brampton, the plaintiff argued that further delay would cause prejudice, particularly regarding income loss limits and increasing statutory deductibles under the Insurance Act.

The court granted the motion, conditionally striking the jury notice to allow the trial to proceed before a judge alone if a jury trial could not be accommodated during the January 2022 sittings.

The plaintiff sued his former lawyer for negligence, alleging that a 1999 settlement of his accident benefits and tort claims was improvident.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known within five years of the settlement that his income was inadequate to meet his needs, which would give rise to a plausible inference of liability.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant commercial tenant brought an urgent application to recover possession of leased premises after being locked out by the respondent landlord for non-payment of a security deposit.

The parties had orally agreed to an installment plan for the deposit, but the tenant missed the first payment.

The landlord issued a notice of default and terminated the lease shortly after.

The court found that while there was an oral agreement for installments, there was no agreement to waive the five-business-day notice period required by the lease for default of Additional Rent.

Therefore, the termination was premature and unlawful.

The court ordered the landlord to restore possession to the tenant, conditional on payment of the deposit and rent.

The Law Foundation of Ontario brought a motion for directions regarding its statutory authority to administer the Class Proceedings Fund during the individual issues stage of a class action.

The court held that the Law Foundation has the statutory authority to provide litigation support and adverse costs protection for individual issues trials, but is not obliged to do so even if it funded the common issues stage.

Furthermore, the court determined that the Law Foundation's statutory levy applies to all recoveries, including individual issues judgments, regardless of whether it provides funding for that specific stage.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt after the defendants failed to attend examinations in aid of execution and multiple subsequent court appearances.

One defendant appeared at the motion and was ordered to attend a rescheduled examination.

The other defendant failed to appear again, and the court issued a bench warrant for his arrest, with his next appearance to consider an order of contempt.

The defendants brought a motion to have a 2015 action tried together with two earlier actions (the Loan Actions) which had already been ordered to be tried together.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the 2015 action did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the Loan Actions, and there were no common questions of fact or law.

Furthermore, the court noted the defendants' unexplained delay in bringing the motion, which would have unnecessarily delayed the trial of the 2015 action currently scheduled to proceed.

The plaintiffs sought approval of a settlement agreement with the remaining bank defendants in a national class action alleging a conspiracy to fix credit card merchant discount fees.

A joint virtual hearing was held with judges from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the settlement, adopting the reasons of the British Columbia Supreme Court.

At a case conference for a certified class action claiming $1.5 billion for understated fuel consumption, both parties had brought summary judgment motions.

Given the complexity of the case, which involves nearly two dozen expert witnesses and significant technical data, the court endorsed the parties' proposal to proceed with a 4-week hybrid trial rather than a 'trial in a box' summary judgment motion.

The parties in a proposed class action reached a consortium agreement to seek certification of a national class in British Columbia.

A dispute arose over whether the Ontario action should be stayed permanently or conditionally.

The parties ultimately agreed to a consent order staying the action subject to further order of the court, but could not agree on costs.

The court found that both parties had credible arguments for being the successful party, as their positions were almost identical, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The plaintiff hired the defendant to construct a pole barn.

The defendant abandoned the project before completion, citing delays and health issues, leaving the barn unfinished and exposed to the elements.

The defendant failed to appear at trial.

The court found the defendant liable for breach of contract and awarded the plaintiff $71,288.13 in damages, representing the overpayment for work performed and the estimated cost to complete the barn to the contract's specifications, plus $10,500 in costs.

The plaintiffs sought complete indemnification for their costs incurred in successfully prosecuting six counts of contempt of court against the defendant.

The court found that the defendant conducted the proceeding reprehensibly by deliberately stalling, running up the plaintiffs' costs, and abusing the court's scheduling indulgences.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $226,816.50.

The defendants successfully moved to strike the plaintiff's claim, which included legally unfounded claims for Charter damages against individuals.

The defendants sought costs of $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the requested amount to be fair and reasonable given the serious allegations and the lack of clarity in the plaintiff's pleadings, which increased the time required to respond.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $7,500 in costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike portions of the defendant's statement of defence in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff sought to strike allegations of performance issues, arguing they were irrelevant as the termination was without cause, and allegations of a settlement offer.

The court agreed, finding the performance issues were not tied to the bonus claim as argued by the defendant, and that pleading a settlement offer or a 'reasonable termination arrangement' was irrelevant and improper.

The motion was granted and the offending paragraphs were struck.

The defendant appealed a Master's decision setting aside a Registrar's order that dismissed the plaintiff's defamation action for delay.

The defendant argued the Master erred by not upholding the dismissal after finding the plaintiff deliberately delayed the action, and by reversing the burden of proof regarding prejudice.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Master applied the correct contextual approach to the Reid factors and reasonably concluded that the interests of justice favoured deciding the case on its merits, given the lack of significant prejudice to the defendant.

The plaintiffs, a mother and son, commenced an action seeking $20,000,000 in damages against the defendant, the son's former romantic partner.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendant negligently scheduled family law motions on the same day as the mother's breast cancer surgery, preventing the son from attending the hospital to support her, which caused her to abandon the surgery.

The defendant moved to dismiss the action as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01(1).

The court applied the Anns test and concluded that the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs in these circumstances.

The action was dismissed for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.