Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The plaintiff moved for leave to amend his Statement of Claim to add claims for punitive and aggravated damages, and for further discovery, after the action had been set down for trial.

The proposed amendments arose from the defendant's late production of an accident investigation report.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff failed to seek leave under Rule 48.04 and that the amendments raised a statute-barred new cause of action.

The court granted the motion, finding the amendments merely provided new legal characterizations of existing claims rather than a new cause of action, and the defendant demonstrated no non-compensable prejudice.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitral award finding it breached contractual and fiduciary duties by failing to redeem the respondent's hedge fund investment.

The arbitrator awarded $1.3 million in damages, rejecting the applicant's argument that damages should be assessed based on an alternative, less onerous method of performance.

The Superior Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the arbitrator correctly interpreted the contract as mandating only one method of performance and that the applicant's challenges raised issues of mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff sought full or substantial indemnity costs, alleging the defendant engaged in improper conduct by initially offering insufficient severance.

The court found no improper, vexatious, or unnecessary conduct by the defendant that would warrant elevated costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $14,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, noting the straightforward nature of the proceeding.

The plaintiff's personal injury action was dismissed after she failed to comply with an order requiring her to appoint new counsel.

She brought a motion under Rule 37.14 to set aside the dismissal, claiming she never received the notices of motion or the orders sent by regular mail to her home address.

The court found her claim implausible, noting that six separate documents were mailed to her correct address and none were returned as undelivered.

The court concluded she did not fail to appear through accident, mistake, or insufficient notice, and dismissed the motion.

Following a jury trial where the plaintiff's slip and fall claim was dismissed, the successful defendant sought costs on a partial and substantial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff argued that no costs should be awarded due to his serious injuries and limited ability to pay.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the case was not exceptional.

The court also rejected the argument for zero costs, noting insufficient evidence of impecuniosity.

Applying principles of proportionality and access to justice, the court reduced the defendant's claimed costs and fixed the award at $12,500.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs of $25,526, including a request that costs be paid personally by the plaintiff's counsel.

The court found the requested amount disproportionate to the issue and time incurred, and declined to order costs against counsel personally.

The court fixed costs at $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable by the plaintiff.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiff, the parties submitted written arguments regarding costs.

The defendant insurer sought costs against the plaintiff's counsel personally for allegedly unnecessary court appearances.

The court declined to award costs against counsel personally but significantly reduced the plaintiff's costs award to $1,750 due to the plaintiff's responsibility for delay and unnecessary expense.

Following an order setting aside a default judgment, the court determined the costs thrown away payable to the plaintiff and the costs of the motion payable to the defendant.

The plaintiff was awarded $16,500 in costs thrown away on a substantial indemnity basis, after reductions for unrelated enforcement proceedings and a recoverable sheriff's fee.

The defendant was awarded $3,500 in costs for the motion on a partial indemnity basis, as the court found the defendant's settlement offer did not trigger Rule 49 consequences and success was somewhat divided.

Following a motion where the applicants achieved substantial success, the parties provided written submissions on costs.

The applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $14,803.00 plus disbursements.

The respondents argued they should be compensated for costs thrown away due to allegedly wasteful steps.

The court awarded the applicants $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, leaving the respondents' arguments regarding wasted costs to be determined by the trial judge.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The underlying motion judge had found a triable issue regarding whether fraudulent concealment prevented the moving party from relying on the limitations period in the Trustee Act.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the moving party failed to establish conflicting case law or an issue of public importance that went beyond the interests of the immediate parties.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' personal injury action on summary judgment, the court determined the costs payable.

The defendants sought costs from the plaintiffs and argued the plaintiffs should also be liable for the costs of the third parties, whom the defendants had joined.

The court applied the general rule that an unsuccessful plaintiff is not responsible for the costs of third parties they did not sue, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from this rule.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants $44,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the defendants were ordered to pay the full costs claimed by the various third parties, totaling over $133,000.

Following the plaintiff's success in resisting an appeal from a Master's order, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale or, alternatively, on a partial indemnity scale.

The court found no reason to award costs on an elevated scale and fixed the plaintiff's costs on a partial indemnity basis at $4,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellant spa owner appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding her liable for negligence after the respondent suffered severe facial infections from receiving electrolysis shortly after dermal filler injections.

The respondent cross-appealed the $6,000 damages award, seeking $25,000.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions on causation and negligence.

The cross-appeal on damages was also dismissed, as the award was not wholly erroneous, but the judgment was varied to include $1,400 in pre-judgment interest.

Following the dismissal of a motion brought by the defendant and a lien claimant to declare the plaintiff's construction lien expired, the court determined the costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of over $80,000, citing an unaccepted offer to settle and the importance of the motion.

The court found the offer did not comply with Rule 49 and awarded partial indemnity costs.

Applying the principle of proportionality and considering the factors in Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs at $22,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The individual defendants sought costs for two successful motions to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim and amended claim.

The plaintiff argued success was divided because leave to amend was granted, and that the costs claimed were excessive.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the defendants were substantially successful.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no egregious misconduct by the plaintiff.

Applying the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court awarded the individual defendants $18,052.30 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants sought a statutory injunction under section 380 of the City of Toronto Act to restrain the respondent from operating a commercial parking lot in contravention of a zoning by-law.

The respondent conceded the non-compliance but argued the parking lot was a legal non-conforming use.

The court found the applicants had standing as taxpayers and established a clear breach of the by-law.

The respondent failed to prove continuous use as a commercial parking lot since the by-law's passage, as the property was previously used as an accessory lot.

Finding no exceptional circumstances, the court granted the statutory injunction and related declaratory relief.

The court issued a notice to the plaintiff under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering the dismissal of the action.

The plaintiff requested and received an extension of time to respond but failed to provide written submissions.

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

The applicants brought motions for contempt against the respondents, specifically Fateh Singh Sidhu, for breaching eight court orders related to the disclosure of financial and operational information regarding several Popeye's franchises.

The court found that the orders were clear and unequivocal, and that Sidhu deliberately and willfully disobeyed them.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Sidhu was in civil contempt and adjourned the matter for a penalty hearing.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 30.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order compelling the defendant to disclose a specific PhD thesis and other 'secondary sources' not included in the defendant's affidavit of documents.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the thesis was relevant to any matter in issue or that any specific relevant documents had been omitted.

The court also held that ordering disclosure of documents consulted by the defendant's legal team would infringe litigation privilege.

Mid-Bowline Group Corp. applied under s. 182 of the OBCA for approval of a plan of arrangement to sell WIND Mobile to Shaw Communications for $1.6 billion.

The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. opposed the plan, asserting a constructive trust claim over shares held by West Face Capital Inc., alleging misuse of confidential information.

The court found the plan of arrangement fair and reasonable, as it allowed the sale to proceed while preserving Catalyst's right to pursue its claims against West Face for profits and tracing.

The court rejected Catalyst's demand for a full trial, citing the need for a timely resolution, and ordered an expedited four-day hearing for the constructive trust issue.