Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

Following summary judgment motions where success was divided, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff recovered $6,132.96 in the main action, while the defendant recovered $51,801.05 in the counterclaim, with the amounts set off against each other.

Both parties sought partial indemnity costs, with the plaintiff claiming $106,063.41 and the defendant claiming $76,730.39.

Given the divided success and the amounts recovered falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court and Simplified Procedure, the court ordered that both parties bear their own costs.

The proposed defendant brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel and his law firm from acting on a pending motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation, arguing that the counsel had sworn an affidavit and thus became a witness.

The Master dismissed the motion, finding that the counsel was not a necessary witness at trial and that the firm could simply substitute an affidavit from another member of the firm.

The court emphasized proportionality and noted that removing a firm merely because a lawyer swore a procedural affidavit on a motion is unnecessary.

The property owner's dwelling was damaged by fire, leading the municipality to issue a demolition order.

The owner previously obtained a consent order staying the demolition on the condition that she take specific steps to repair the property within six months.

After the owner failed to take any of the required steps for over 18 months, the municipality brought a motion for an order to demolish the property and to find the owner in contempt.

The court granted the motion, ordering the demolition of the property and finding the owner in contempt of the previous order, with the penalty phase adjourned.

The plaintiff, the deceased's former common-law spouse, claimed entitlement to a $190,000 life insurance policy provided by the deceased's employer.

The deceased died intestate, and the estate trustees disputed the plaintiff's claim, arguing the estate was the beneficiary.

The estate trustees moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim, and the plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment.

The court dismissed both motions, applying the Hryniak framework to conclude that granting summary judgment would not fully dispose of the action, as claims against the employer would remain, creating a risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings on credibility.

The court issued an endorsement on costs and the settling of orders following a decision that declared a settlement agreement valid and stayed a fourth-party claim.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs against the third party, 1671233 Ontario Limited, in favour of the plaintiffs, defendants, and other third/fourth parties.

The court denied the plaintiffs' request for interest on the settlement funds but ordered the immediate release of the $80,000 held in trust.

The court also resolved disputes over the wording of the formal orders and the release document.

The applicant commenced an application seeking injunctive relief against the respondents.

The respondents requested the proceeding be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found the applicant's written submissions relied on Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA) and failed to address the improper use of an application for standalone injunctive relief.

The court dismissed the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The defendants submitted a written request under Rule 2.1.01(6) to dismiss the plaintiff's civil action, arguing it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court.

The plaintiff's action alleged fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy regarding the failure to account for marital assets pending a divorce.

The court found that while the proceeding could not proceed on its own without a family law equalization claim, the claims against the non-spouse defendants existed independently.

Applying the test from Raji, the court held that Rule 2.1 is not for close calls and directed the defendants to bring a formal motion to transfer or consolidate the proceeding.

The request to dismiss was dismissed with no costs.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) for a declaration that the plaintiff's proposed class action claims for secondary market misrepresentations under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act were statute-barred.

The court found that 11 of the 14 alleged misrepresentations occurred more than three years before the action was commenced and were therefore statute-barred under s. 138.14.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that s. 138.3(6) could save the claims by treating them as a single continuous misrepresentation.

However, the court found that the remaining three misrepresentation claims were not necessarily statute-barred, as the plaintiff had served a notice of motion for leave before the limitation period expired, allowing for potential reliance on the nunc pro tunc doctrine.

Costs decision following a neighbour dispute over laneway access.

The successful party sought $43,750 in costs, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found the offer was not beaten and noted the successful party's provocative pre-litigation conduct in blocking the laneway unnecessarily escalated the dispute.

Applying the principle of proportionality and considering the conduct, the court fixed costs at $15,000.

In a family dispute over their mother's property, the defendant sister sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The moving plaintiff sister sought an order permitting her to attend the cross-examination of their mother on her affidavit.

The court reviewed the law on excluding co-parties from examinations to prevent the tailoring of evidence or intimidation.

The court ordered that the moving plaintiff be excluded from the mother's cross-examination, directing that only counsel, an interpreter, and the mother be present.

Class counsel brought a motion for approval of their legal fees and disbursements following the settlement of a securities class proceeding for $29.5 million.

Counsel sought $5.9 million in fees based on a contingency agreement.

The court reviewed the factors for approving class counsel fees, noting the early settlement and the high hourly rates docketed.

The court reduced the requested fee, approving $2.775 million plus HST as fair and reasonable compensation for the risk assumed and results achieved, along with full recovery of disbursements.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) to show cause why their action should not be dismissed for delay.

The action arose from a construction mortgage dispute and was related to a separate Brampton action where the defendants had obtained summary judgment against the plaintiffs.

The Master found that the plaintiffs' involvement in the related action and the defendants' failure to serve a statement of defence provided an acceptable explanation for the delay.

The Master also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants and ordered that the action proceed.

Following a motion to consolidate 48 actions where the moving defendants were largely successful but the plaintiff successfully resisted consolidation of one action, the court determined costs.

Considering the divided success and a reasonable settlement offer made by the plaintiff, the court ordered the moving defendants to pay partial indemnity costs of $7,500 to the plaintiff and $5,522.91 to the successful co-defendant, Boston Pizza.

The defendants brought a motion for the production of a report prepared by the plaintiff's Barbadian counsel (the CGF Report) and a list of documents reviewed by that counsel.

The plaintiff claimed solicitor-client and litigation privilege over the report and the list of documents.

The court held that the CGF Report was protected by solicitor-client privilege as it contained legal advice, and the plaintiff had not waived this privilege.

However, the court found that the list of documents reviewed by counsel was not privileged, as it merely constituted facts, and ordered its production.

A cross-motion by the plaintiff to strike portions of an affidavit was resolved by the court placing no weight on the hearsay paragraphs.

The Requestors, former students of St. Anne's Indian Residential School, brought Requests for Directions (RFDs) under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA).

They sought directions regarding the procedure for an upcoming hearing to determine their standing.

The court directed that the Requestors must establish standing as a preliminary matter, that Canada is not required to file evidence or respond to a Request to Admit, and that costs immunity for the hearing is denied, with costs reserved to the court's discretion.

The plaintiff previously obtained a judgment requiring the defendant to provide an accounting of funds.

The defendant was found in contempt twice for failing to comply with the accounting orders.

The court heard the sentencing for the second contempt finding and the defendant's motion to vary or discharge the first contempt sentence.

The court found that the defendant had not purged his contempt, noting his lack of diligence and failure to disclose accounts.

The motion to vary the first sentence was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to serve the remaining 20 days of his first sentence.

For the second contempt, the court sentenced the defendant to an additional 21 days in custody, to be served consecutively, and ordered financial institutions to produce the required records directly to the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs moved for default judgment against the defendants for breach of a contract to install roof-mounted solar panels.

The defendants failed to respond to the claim.

The court found that the defendants acted fraudulently by taking the plaintiffs' deposit money and depriving them of expected profits.

The court pierced the corporate veil, holding the individual operating mind jointly liable with the corporate entities.

Default judgment was granted for breach of contract and punitive damages, with a declaration that the judgment survives any bankruptcy.

The defendant brought a motion to strike out or stay the plaintiffs' claim due to the plaintiffs' failure to pay outstanding costs orders from an unsuccessful summary judgment application.

The plaintiffs admitted default but claimed impecuniosity.

The court dismissed the motion without costs, finding that the plaintiffs were genuinely without funds, the previous motion was not frivolous, and the defendants failed to show prejudice.

The parties sought costs following a series of motions concerning document production and privilege.

The plaintiffs had been unsuccessful on all their motions, including an attempt to set aside prior orders based on unproven allegations of fraud against the Crown.

The Crown and another defendant, Sandra Antoniani, were successful in their respective motions.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Antoniani in the amount of $25,635.80.

The court awarded the Crown $25,000 in partial indemnity costs for its clawback motion and $45,000 in substantial indemnity costs for responding to the plaintiffs' motions, noting the plaintiffs' unproven allegations of fraud and unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's slip and fall action, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the plaintiff acted unreasonably during mediation and pre-trials.

The court found that while the plaintiff's evidence involved exaggeration and his refusal to compromise was unreasonable, his behaviour did not rise to the level of reprehensible conduct required for elevated costs.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs in the amount of $139,821.66.