Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act for a proposed securities class action.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misrepresented the company's ability to maintain its dividend, causing shareholders and debenture-holders to sustain losses when the dividend was cut.

The court dismissed the leave motion, finding no reasonable possibility that the secondary market misrepresentation claims would succeed at trial, as the defendants' statements were based on a genuine belief in their growth strategy at the time.

The court also dismissed the certification motion, holding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure for the remaining common law negligent misrepresentation claims, which require individualized proof of reliance.

The plaintiffs, who operated mobile sign leasing businesses, sued the City of Mississauga for $7.5 million in damages for negligent enforcement of a 2002 sign bylaw.

They argued their signs were 'grandfathered' and exempt from the new bylaw because the previous bylaw had expired, leaving a period of no regulation.

The court found that while the signs were lawfully erected and grandfathered, the City did not owe a private law duty of care to the plaintiffs.

The City's actions in publicizing and implementing the bylaw were protected policy decisions, and finding a duty of care would expose the City to indeterminate liability.

The action was dismissed.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded damages against its former employee, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the employee's actions constituted misappropriation under s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court dismissed the claim for declaratory relief because the plaintiff had not pleaded or proven that the employee was acting in a fiduciary capacity, which is a requirement under the statute.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to seek such a declaration in future bankruptcy proceedings if the employee becomes bankrupt.

Following a successful application confirming user in common rights on a subdivision plan, the applicants sought costs of $51,593.86.

The respondent landowners argued the amount was excessive for a one-day hearing.

The respondent municipality also sought costs against the respondent landowners.

The court awarded the applicants $45,000 in partial indemnity costs, finding the claimed amount excessive despite the complexity of the historical real estate issues.

The municipality was awarded $2,500 in costs for its helpful submissions, though its costs were reduced because it remained adverse in interest to the applicants until the morning of the hearing.

The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality for damages after a retaining wall on the plaintiff's property collapsed.

The plaintiff alleged the municipality negligently approved the wall's design and failed to follow a third-party engineer's recommendation to conduct a complete visual inspection.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an agreement that would create a duty of care regarding the wall's design.

Furthermore, the municipality's prior inspection and repair of the wall constituted a gratuitous undertaking, and there was no detrimental reliance by the plaintiff to ground liability.

Lina and Paul Lochner brought a motion to remove the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) as the litigation guardian for their brother, George Lochner, a party under disability.

The PGT had been appointed by a previous court order and was seeking court approval for a proposed settlement with the defendants.

Lina and Paul opposed the settlement and sought to be appointed as litigation guardians instead.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to meet the high onus of demonstrating clear and cogent evidence of misconduct or that the PGT was not acting in George's best interests.

The plaintiff brought an action for defamation after the defendant, her former tenant, sent emails to her employer alleging she evicted him because he was gay and used cipher encoded messages to organize a conspiracy against him.

The plaintiff moved for a permanent injunction, summary judgment, and to strike the defendant's counterclaim.

The court found the defendant's statements clearly defamatory and impossible to justify, granting summary judgment and awarding $10,000 in damages.

The court also granted a permanent injunction and struck the defendant's counterclaim as scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious.

During the distribution phase of a class proceeding, class counsel and counsel for five class members sought court approval of an instruction to the claims administrator to resolve a potential Human Rights Code complaint regarding the distribution plan.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it could not endorse the proposed instruction or the payment of costs from the settlement fund without ruling on the merits of the underlying dispute.

The court directed that a full motion for directions proceed.

Following a successful negligence trial where damages were agreed at approximately $7.85 million, the plaintiffs sought costs of $660,000.

The plaintiffs had previously settled with two defendants for $1,000,000 and received costs up to October 2005.

The plaintiffs beat their Rule 49 offer to settle made on March 12, 2015.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixing the total costs payable by the remaining defendant at $400,000 all inclusive.

The Attorney General of Canada brought an action for unjust enrichment to recover $194,000 USD mistakenly paid to the defendants.

The funds were intended for another claimant under a United Nations compensation program but were erroneously sent to the defendant wife.

The defendants cashed the cheque and spent the funds, later arguing estoppel and change of position.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the defendants knew or ought to have known the funds were misdirected.

The court rejected the defendants' defences, finding no juristic reason for the enrichment, and ordered the defendants to repay the outstanding balance of the funds plus interest and costs.

The defendant driver of the lead vehicle in a rear-end collision brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and the co-defendant's crossclaim against her.

The co-defendant driver of the rear vehicle opposed the motion, alleging the lead vehicle stopped suddenly.

The court applied the presumption that the rear driver is at fault and found the co-defendant failed to discharge the onus to show the accident did not occur as a result of his negligence.

The motion was granted and the claims against the lead driver were dismissed.

The plaintiff's motor vehicle accident action was dismissed after failing to meet the statutory threshold, despite a jury awarding $30,000 in general damages.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found that the defendant's counsel engaged in uncivil conduct, failed to cooperate on a joint document brief, delivered late expert reports, and repeatedly ignored a trial management order and court deadlines.

Although the defendant was the successful party and would normally be entitled to costs of approximately $100,000, the court exercised its discretion to deprive the defendant of costs due to counsel's misconduct.

The defendant was ordered to pay $441.13 for half the copying costs of the joint document brief.

The plaintiff brought a motion for further document production and an order permitting inspection of the defendants' custom-built home under Rule 32.01.

The underlying action involved claims of copyright infringement regarding exterior precast moulds, and a counterclaim for diminution in value due to the loss of the home's uniqueness.

The Master dismissed the request for interior design documents as irrelevant to the pleadings.

The Master granted the request for an inspection by a real estate appraiser and an interior designer, finding it necessary to test the defendants' claim of uniqueness, but denied an inspection by an architect.

The Master also set conditions for the inspection, allowing the plaintiff's counsel to attend and permitting photography, while denying the defendants' request for a sealing order.

Remarkable Energy Inc. pledged its feed-in tariff (FIT) contract with the Ontario Power Authority as security for a loan from Crosscurrent Energy Corp. Crosscurrent foreclosed on the security after Remarkable failed to respond to a notice of foreclosure within 15 days.

Remarkable applied for relief from forfeiture.

Crosscurrent argued Remarkable acted in bad faith by failing to negotiate a final price for the sale of the FIT contract.

The court found no bad faith, noted the demand for payment lacked proper details, and held the breach was not grave compared to the value of the FIT contract.

The court granted Remarkable relief from forfeiture.

Following an order by the Court of Appeal awarding the plaintiffs their costs of a summary judgment motion, the parties were unable to agree on the quantum.

The plaintiffs sought $50,000 in fees and $3,236.40 in disbursements, while the defendant argued for costs in the cause or a reduced amount.

Applying the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court fixed the plaintiffs' costs of the summary judgment motion at $53,236.40 on a partial indemnity scale.

The court also awarded the plaintiffs $10,000 for a successful Rule 34.14 motion, with all costs payable in any event of the cause.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21 for an order that it was not responsible to pay the plaintiff subcontractor for extra work that was not negotiated or confirmed in writing prior to the work being done, as required by their contract.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion arguing the defendant varied the terms of the contract by its conduct when its site superintendent requested the work and signed purchase orders.

The court found that the defendant's failure to pay for any of the extras distinguished the case from precedents where conduct constituted a waiver.

The court held the defendant was not liable for the extra charges and awarded costs to the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel his former solicitor to transfer his file to his new solicitor.

The former solicitor asserted a solicitor's lien and demanded immediate payment of outstanding disbursements before releasing the file.

The court reviewed the contingency fee retainer agreement and found it did not require immediate payment of disbursements upon termination.

Given the plaintiff's impecuniosity and the former solicitor's ability to protect its interests via a charging order against future settlement proceeds, the court ordered the file transferred subject to a $300 copying fee.

The moving party, a sub-subcontractor, brought a motion for further and better documentary production from the responding party contractor in a construction lien action.

The court ordered the responding party to produce all payment certificates related to the main contract, finding them relevant to the delay claims raised in the counterclaim.

The court also enforced an agreement between the parties to produce emails in their native PST format rather than 'near native' format, applying the Sedona Canada Principles.

Finally, the court ordered that affidavits of documents be provided in electronic format (Word or Excel) to ensure meaningful access to the voluminous productions.

The applicants, former students at the Bishop Horden Indian Residential School, brought a Request for Directions alleging that Canada breached its document disclosure obligations under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA).

They sought orders compelling Canada to conduct additional searches for documents related to abuse at the school and requiring the Secretariat to establish a witness-matching program.

The court found that Canada breached its contractual obligations by failing to collect documents from the RCMP detachment at Moose Factory.

The court ordered Canada to conduct these additional searches but dismissed the requests for a witness-matching program and broader document production, finding they exceeded Canada's obligations under the IRSSA.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of their action, which arose from a real estate transaction.

The action was dismissed by the Registrar after the plaintiffs failed to set the matter down for trial in accordance with a court-ordered timetable.

The court applied the four-part test for setting aside a dismissal and found that the plaintiffs' delay was intentional, as they had prioritized an alternative resolution through the Ministry of the Environment over the litigation.

Given the significant delay in bringing the motion and the prejudice to the defendants, the court refused to set aside the dismissal.