Atrisha Lewis

Supplemental reasons issued to correct an error in the court's previous decision (2022 ONSC 12).

The court corrected paragraph 4 to clarify that Lloyds should not have been listed as a party challenging the forum of the action.

Vale Canada and its primary insurer, RSA, brought actions against numerous excess insurers for coverage of environmental remediation costs incurred primarily in Ontario.

Several foreign excess insurers brought motions challenging the jurisdiction of the Ontario court or seeking a stay based on forum non conveniens in favour of an action in New York.

The court found it had jurisdiction over all moving insurers except North River Insurance Company, concluding that the insurers were 'carrying on business' in Ontario by participating in a global insurance program for an Ontario-based company.

The court declined to stay the actions for forum non conveniens, finding Ontario to be the 'centre of gravity' for the dispute.

Claims by Vale Canada against two UK insurers were stayed pending arbitration.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's proceeding, the successful respondents sought costs.

The court found the application to be scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious, noting the applicant, a self-represented lawyer, engaged in egregious misconduct including racist and personal attacks against the respondents and their counsel.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the Law Society of Ontario in the amount of $33,000 and to the individual respondent in the amount of $12,742.86, emphasizing the need to sanction the applicant's abuse of the justice system.

The applicant lawyer commenced an application seeking to halt a Law Society of Ontario investigation into complaints regarding his social media posts, and claiming damages against the LSO and the individual complainants.

The respondents moved to strike the application.

The court dismissed the application on the basis that it was improperly commenced by Notice of Application rather than a Statement of Claim.

In the alternative, the court held it would have struck the applicant's pleadings in their entirety without leave to amend under Rule 25.11, finding them to be scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The self-represented applicant lawyer brought an application against the Law Society of Ontario and several individuals following online disputes and subsequent professional complaints.

The matter came before the court on a regular motions list but was plagued by procedural irregularities, including improper service, failure to file application records, and disputes over representation.

The court adjourned the matter to a special appointment hearing, provided strict timetables for the filing of materials, and dismissed the applicant's request to remove opposing counsel from the record for alleged sharp practice.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's class action on summary judgment, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendants sought full or substantial indemnity costs, while the Class Proceedings Fund argued for a 30% reduction on the basis that the litigation was brought in the public interest.

The court rejected both arguments, finding that the defendants' discounted fee arrangement and the breach of trust pleading did not justify an elevated costs scale, and that the pension calculation dispute was a private financial matter rather than public interest litigation.

The court exercised its discretion to award the defendants partial indemnity costs fixed at $200,000 for fees plus disbursements.

The court issued a supplementary endorsement to correct two points from its previous reasons for judgment granting certification and summary judgment dismissing the action.

On consent of the parties, the court revised the class definition regarding the defined benefit indexation payment increase from the pension plan.

The court also clarified that only the employer, and not the other defendants, owed a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff in the administration of the plan.

The plaintiff, a pensioner, brought a proposed class action alleging that the employer miscalculated the 2017 cost of living increase for pension payments, negatively affecting all subsequent years.

The plaintiff sought certification of the class proceeding and summary judgment for breach of contract, breach of trust, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding, finding it met all criteria under the Class Proceedings Act.

However, on the merits, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the defendants, concluding that the employer's interpretation of the pension plan's rounding provisions was correct and no breach of duty occurred.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action moved to introduce Pension Information Committee Reports from 1998 to the present as late-filed evidence, after cross-examinations had been completed.

The defendants objected but suggested that if the reports were admitted, the annual pension statements for the same years should also be admitted.

The court applied the test for late-filed evidence, finding the documents relevant, non-prejudicial as they were the defendants' own records, and reasonably omitted initially.

The court granted the motion, admitting both the reports and the annual statements in the interests of justice.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for the unpaid purchase price of a shipment of shrimp.

The Court of Appeal had previously directed a rehearing applying the Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG).

The defendant argued it was entitled to avoid the contract due to a defective Health Certificate and that the plaintiff's acceptance of the returned shrimp mitigated damages or constituted unjust enrichment.

The court found the defendant did not properly declare the contract avoided under the CISG and that there was no agreement excusing payment of the purchase price upon the return of the goods.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for the full purchase price plus 8% interest.

The plaintiffs sought costs for undertakings and refusals motions brought against several defendants in a medical malpractice action.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $6,800 in costs against five defendant physicians who failed to answer undertakings until after the motion was served.

However, the court awarded costs of $3,257.64 to another defendant physician who was successful on the single refusal argued and had answered undertakings promptly.

No costs were awarded against two other defendants who resolved their issues prior to the hearing.

The plaintiff, the former manager of the defendant investment fund, sued for fees and damages following the termination of its management agreement.

The defendant fund counterclaimed, alleging the manager was terminated for cause due to material breaches of the standard of care, particularly regarding its handling of the fund's liquidity crisis and its recommendation to enter into a high-interest loan rather than suspending redemptions.

The court found that the manager materially breached the standard of care, justifying the termination.

However, the fund's counterclaim for damages was dismissed as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The manager was awarded certain unpaid fees accrued prior to termination.

During a medical malpractice trial concerning an ulnar nerve injury sustained during orthopedic surgery, the defendants objected to the plaintiffs' expert orthopedic surgeon testifying on causation and standard of care issues not expressly stated in his written reports.

The court ruled that under Rule 53.03, an expert cannot testify on matters that open up a new field not mentioned in their report, nor can the court be left to infer opinions.

The expert was precluded from offering opinions on causation and the standard of care for the initial consultation, as these were not clearly articulated in his reports.

The plaintiffs sued the lawyer who represented the purchaser in a share sale, alleging he falsely stated that funds had been deposited in a trust account.

The lawyer and his firm moved to strike the claims against them.

The court struck the claim for negligent misrepresentation, finding that a lawyer owes no duty of care to an opposing party who is represented by their own counsel.

However, the court refused to strike the claim for intentional misrepresentation, finding the plaintiffs had pleaded all necessary elements.

The court also declined to strike a cross-claim for contribution by a co-defendant bank.