Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The plaintiffs operated a driving range on the defendants' golf course as tenants at will.

After a dispute, the defendants terminated the lease and prevented the plaintiffs from removing their equipment and structures, continuing to use them for eight years.

The court found the items were trade fixtures, which are exempt from distress when a lease is terminated.

The defendants were found liable for the tort of conversion and ordered to pay the market value of the fixtures plus exemplary damages for their continued use.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim at trial, the successful defendants sought costs of $75,000.

The court found that the plaintiff had unreasonably pursued a meritless case, provided tailored evidence, and rejected an offer to settle that would have resulted in a dismissal without costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1) and Rule 49, the court awarded the defendants costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a decision on share ownership, the court held a trial management conference to determine next steps in the consolidated actions, which include an oppression remedy claim.

The court directed the parties to consider whether a stay motion will be brought pending an appeal of the initial decision, how to efficiently gather and present extensive financial evidence, and the potential for a mid-trial settlement conference.

The conference was adjourned to allow counsel to obtain instructions.

The plaintiff university brought an action against its former Assistant Vice-President and Director of Maintenance, alleging they orchestrated multiple fraudulent schemes, including false invoicing, kickbacks, and using university resources for personal residence improvements.

The court found the defendants liable for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, ordering them to pay damages.

The court also voided the transfer of the primary defendant's properties to his family members as fraudulent conveyances and rescinded his severance agreement due to material non-disclosure of his fraudulent activities.

The applicant law firm sought costs of $32,307.82 following its successful appeal of an assessment officer's decision that had ordered it to refund $662,455.98 to the respondent clients.

On appeal, the court had substituted its own determination, ordering the law firm to pay $475,000.

The respondent clients sought partial indemnity costs of $20,000 for the appeal.

The court held that while the law firm was technically successful in setting aside the certificate of assessment, the substantial award against it should not be diluted by awarding costs against the clients.

The court awarded the respondent clients $15,000 in costs.

The court issued a notice to the plaintiff under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating it was considering dismissing the action.

The plaintiff failed to provide written submissions within the prescribed 15-day period.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant brought an application seeking to rescind orders made by other judges in a different proceeding between the same parties.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissal of the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The applicant argued that he needed to bring a new proceeding because the respondent had requested an order restricting him from bringing further motions without leave in the other proceeding.

The court held that bringing a new application to circumvent a leave requirement or to re-litigate issues already resolved is a flagrant abuse of process.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The defendant Children's Aid Society submitted a written request under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to have the plaintiff's statement of claim dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff sought $65 million in damages regarding the defendant's conduct in aborted proceedings.

The court found that while the statement of claim was inelegantly drafted, it was not apparent on its face that the claim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court declined to apply Rule 2.1, making no finding on whether the claim disclosed a cognizable cause of action or should be struck on drafting grounds.

The deceased, Albert Latner, commenced two actions against his son Joshua and Joshua's company.

The first action sought payments owed under a written support agreement.

The second action sought the return of a $13 million payment, claiming it was held on a resulting trust.

The estate continued the actions after Albert's death.

The court allowed the first action, finding that an alleged oral waiver of the support payments violated the parol evidence rule and the agreement's entire agreement clause.

The court dismissed the second action, finding that the defendants successfully rebutted the presumption of resulting trust by proving the $13 million was intended as a gift to equalize financial treatment among the children.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages arising from the purchase of a defective wind turbine from one of the defendant corporations.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against two affiliated corporations, arguing they were separate legal entities.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs' claims regarding lifting the corporate veil, agency, and pure economic loss for negligent manufacture raised genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly given the conflicting evidence on the degree of control and integration among the corporations.

The plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for commercial properties for $36,000,000.

The agreement was conditional on the plaintiff obtaining approval to assume existing mortgages on terms satisfactory to the buyer in its 'sole and absolute discretion.' The plaintiff was unable to secure satisfactory terms from the mortgagees, declared the agreement null and void, and sought the return of its $2,000,000 deposit.

Both parties moved for summary judgment.

The court found that the plaintiff made a bona fide effort to complete the transaction and that the defendants' interpretation would render the 'sole and absolute discretion' clause meaningless.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, ordering the return of the deposit plus costs.

The applicant, who operated a wood shavings business, was sued for negligence after a tree he was cutting down fell and injured the plaintiff.

The applicant sought a declaration that his homeowner's insurer (Northbridge) and his commercial general liability insurer (Economical) had a duty to defend the action.

The court held that Northbridge had no duty to defend because the tree cutting was an occasional pursuit undertaken for financial gain, falling squarely within the policy's business exclusion.

However, the court found that Economical had a duty to defend because the policy covered the applicant as a sole owner of a business, and it was possible the tree cutting arrangement did not constitute a joint venture or partnership that would fall outside coverage.

The applicant's request to appoint independent counsel was dismissed as premature.

The defendants brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiffs in a 12-year-old action regarding water damage to commercial premises.

The court previously found the plaintiffs failed to prove impecuniosity.

The plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence demonstrating a good chance of success against any of the defendants on liability or damages, particularly given a $250,000 advance payment already made.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post security for costs in tranches for each of the moving defendants, totaling $530,000 for the first tranche.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce Minutes of Settlement regarding the sale of a marina property.

The defendant opposed, claiming a set-off and counterclaim for damages resulting from the collapse of boat slips due to snow load, alleging the plaintiff failed to maintain and insure the property while in possession.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the Minutes of Settlement contained a full release and imposed no obligation on the plaintiff to maintain or insure the property for the defendant's benefit.

The defendant was ordered to pay the $500,000 owed under the settlement.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on ice near a commercial coffee shop.

During the jury trial, the court was asked to rule on whether the coffee shop was an occupier of its outdoor patio and the adjacent municipal sidewalk.

The court held that the patio was not a common element under the lease and that the coffee shop was its sole occupier.

Furthermore, by constructing a fence that funnelled customers across a specific portion of the municipal sidewalk and by actively clearing and salting that area, the coffee shop assumed sufficient control over the sidewalk to be considered an occupier under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision that set aside the administrative dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

The court applied the two-part test for leave to appeal under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's application of the Reid principles.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the trial list due to inordinate delay, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendant sought full indemnity costs of $7,122.96, arguing the nature of the plaintiff's claims warranted elevated costs.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, noting the action had not been dismissed and the plaintiff's behavior did not warrant sanction.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $3,576.45, finding this amount fair and reasonable.

The self-represented plaintiff sued the City of Toronto and others after suffering an electric shock and falling onto a city sidewalk while installing a sign.

The City requested the claim against it be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found the statement of claim provided no basis for liability against the City and directed the registrar to issue a notice giving the plaintiff an opportunity to file written submissions before a final determination is made.

The plaintiff brought an action against the City of Toronto for $100,000, alleging that municipal lifeguards illicitly targeted him for swimming too slowly in the fast lane.

The plaintiff claimed breaches of the Statute of Frauds and the Competition Act.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the exercise of discretion by lifeguards cannot be challenged in a civil action for damages and that the statutes relied upon had no application, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The defendant insurance company brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for long term disability benefits.

The insurer denied the claim based on a pre-existing condition exclusion, arguing the plaintiff only became eligible for coverage after a three-month waiting period following his transition to full-time employment.

The plaintiff argued he was not subject to the waiting period.

The court found the policy clearly defined an employee as permanent and full-time, and the plaintiff's own discovery evidence confirmed he understood his eligibility date.

The court granted summary judgment for the defendant and dismissed the action.