Audrey P. Ramsay

The appellants appealed an Associate Judge's decision that allowed the respondent to amend its statement of claim to include a new cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation.

The appellants argued the new claim was statute-barred.

The Associate Judge had found a discoverability issue that warranted leaving the limitation period determination to trial or summary judgment.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, affirming that where a factual dispute exists regarding discoverability, amendments to pleadings should generally be allowed, and the limitation defence can be pleaded and determined at a later stage.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's decision.

This case involves two anti-SLAPP motions brought by media defendants (Global News, Corus Entertainment, and Jornal North News) to dismiss a defamation lawsuit filed by a former immigration lawyer.

The lawyer alleged defamation stemming from reports about his involvement in an alleged "Pilot Project" for undocumented workers, which government officials denied existed.

The court dismissed the defamation claims, finding that the media expressions related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff failed to show substantial merit to his claim, and the defendants had valid defenses of truth/justification and responsible communication.

The court also found that any harm suffered by the plaintiff did not outweigh the public interest in protecting freedom of expression.

Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited and Hospira Inc. (Applicants) brought an application to enforce Letters Rogatory issued by the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The Letters Rogatory sought documentary and oral evidence from Jack Rotsztain and 1827216 Ontario Inc. (Respondents), who were non-parties to the underlying U.S. action.

The U.S. action involved allegations that Apotex Corp. breached an exclusivity agreement by secretly contracting with a different supplier, Qilu, through 182 Ontario, with Mr. Rotsztain acting as its nominal president and counsel.

The Respondents opposed the application, arguing the requests were overly broad, not relevant or necessary, otherwise obtainable, unduly burdensome, and contrary to Canadian public policy, particularly regarding solicitor-client privilege.

The court, applying the six discretionary criteria for enforcing letters rogatory, found that the Applicants failed to establish relevance, necessity, or that the evidence was not otherwise obtainable.

Crucially, the court determined that enforcing the broad requests would be unduly burdensome and infringe upon recognized Canadian legal principles, especially the sanctity of solicitor-client privilege, amounting to a "fishing expedition" not permitted under Ontario's rules for non-party discovery.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Suzanne Seepersaud-Singh, brought an action against Pet Social Inc. and its individual directors for unpaid wages, overtime, and vacation pay, claiming she was an employee or, alternatively, had a constructive trust interest as an owner.

She also sought aggravated and punitive damages.

The court found the plaintiff was an employee and manager of Pet Social Inc. from October 2011 to November 2015 and was entitled to unpaid wages, including vacation pay and overtime.

However, the court dismissed her claims of ownership, unjust enrichment (as it was an alternative to unpaid wages), and her request to pierce the corporate veil to hold the directors personally liable, finding no fraud or improper purpose akin to fraud.

Claims for aggravated and punitive damages were also dismissed as she was not terminated in the usual sense.

This is an appeal from an arbitrator's decision concerning a loss transfer dispute between two out-of-province insurers, Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI) and Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), following a motor vehicle accident in Ontario.

MPI sought indemnification from ICBC under s. 275 of the Ontario Insurance Act for accident benefits paid to its insureds under Manitoba's regulatory scheme.

The arbitrator ruled that s. 275 was inapplicable because MPI had not paid Ontario Statutory Accident Benefits.

The Superior Court upheld the arbitrator's decision, confirming that the Ontario Insurance Act's loss transfer provisions apply only to benefits paid under the Ontario scheme and do not have extraterritorial application to benefits paid under another province's legislation, even if the accident occurred in Ontario and both insurers are signatories to the Power of Attorney and Undertaking (PAU).

The plaintiff consulting firm brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant pharmaceutical company for unpaid invoices totaling $506,198.70 related to expert litigation services provided in a UK proceeding.

The defendant argued the fees exceeded litigation budgets and were unreasonable, and that the plaintiff was estopped from relying on a five-day notice of objection provision in the retainer agreement.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial as the budgets were not part of the contract, no timely written objections were made, and there was no evidence of promissory estoppel.

The plaintiff was awarded the full amount claimed, with pre-judgment interest capped at 5% per year under the Interest Act.

Following a summary judgment finding the defendant liable for a massive campaign of internet defamation against 53 plaintiffs, the court conducted a trial on the assessment of damages.

The defendant had posted thousands of vile and false statements online, accusing the plaintiffs—mostly recruiters and executives—of pedophilia, sexual assault, fraud, and other egregious acts.

The court awarded general damages ranging from $50,000 to $95,000 per plaintiff, aggravated damages of $1,500 to 34 plaintiffs who demonstrated significant mental distress, and punitive damages of $9,000 to each plaintiff due to the defendant's malicious and high-handed conduct.

The court also granted a permanent injunction and ordered the defendant to remove the defamatory content from the internet.

This is a supplementary endorsement on costs.

The respondent sought reconsideration of a prior costs award, arguing that their Rule 49 offer to settle should have been considered.

The court declined to vary the original costs award, finding the respondent's offer lacked the necessary clarity and precision required by Rule 49.10(2) and jurisprudence.

The court also reiterated that the initial costs award was justified by the respondent's uncommunicative conduct, which necessitated the litigation and caused the applicant to incur expenses and tax issues.

The plaintiffs, Dentalcorp Health Services Ltd. and related entities, sought an interim, interlocutory, and permanent injunction against the defendants, Dr. Arsalan Poorsina and his professional corporations, for alleged breaches of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements.

These agreements stemmed from the plaintiffs' 2016 purchase of five dental clinics from Dr. Poorsina.

The court found that the plaintiffs had a strong prima facie case that the restrictive covenants were breached and were enforceable, given they were negotiated by sophisticated parties in the context of a business sale.

However, the motion for injunction was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants, particularly due to the plaintiffs' significant delay in seeking injunctive relief and the fact that the restrictive covenant's term was nearing its end.

The plaintiff, Chicago Title Insurance Company, sought an interim ex parte Norwich order requiring non-party financial institutions to disclose extensive financial records of the defendants, who were involved in a fraudulent mortgage scheme.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a second Norwich order was not necessary as the principal wrongdoer and other recipients of funds were already identified and named as defendants, allowing for discovery through the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court emphasized that Norwich orders are extraordinary remedies not to be used as a substitute for discovery, especially when the identity of wrongdoers is known and litigation has commenced.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' insurance coverage application, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought $100,000 based on a pre-hearing costs agreement, or alternatively $254,566.28 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued the agreement should not be enforced because the respondent's evolving position caused them to incur significant additional costs.

The court enforced the costs agreement, finding no breach or vitiating factors, and awarded the respondent $100,000 for the application plus $8,136 for the costs submissions.

The appellant, JJ, appealed two decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board (the "Board") that confirmed his involuntary status and incapacity to consent to antipsychotic medication.

JJ argued that the Board erred in its capacity finding and in confirming his involuntary status, and that the repeated certification process constituted an abuse of process and res judicata.

The court applied an appellate standard of review (correctness for law, palpable and overriding error for fact/mixed fact and law).

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the Board's findings regarding JJ's incapacity to appreciate the consequences of his treatment decisions or in confirming his involuntary status under the Mental Health Act's "Box B" criteria.

The court also found no error in the Board's decision not to exercise its discretion to find an abuse of process, noting that the merits of the Box B criteria had not been previously tested and there were intervening events of deterioration.

The appeal was dismissed.

This costs endorsement arises from a pedestrian motor vehicle accident case where the jury found no negligence against the defendant driver, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found that Rule 49.10 did not apply as the plaintiff obtained no judgment.

The court exercised its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure to decline awarding costs against the principal plaintiff, Jasmine Jarvis, citing the tragic circumstances of her severe traumatic brain injury, her limited ability to pay, and procedural unfairness during the trial where irrelevant character evidence was improperly introduced.

No costs were awarded against the Family Law Act claimants (grandparents) due to their derivative claims and limited financial means.

This endorsement addresses the plaintiff's request for costs following a previous decision.

The plaintiff sought $10,000 inclusive of HST.

After reviewing the plaintiff's Costs Outline, which detailed $10,604.81 in legal fees, HST, and disbursements on a partial indemnity basis, the court awarded the plaintiff $9,500.00 all-inclusive.

The reduction was due to administrative clerk time, an undescribed entry, and counsel's time for reviewing the endorsement and attending a call with the judge, emphasizing that cost fixing is not an exact mathematical calculation.

The plaintiffs, Lightspeed Commerce Inc. and Lightspeed Payments USA Inc., brought an ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendants, Nurzan Najeebdeen, Spice Nadu Inc., and Eco Care Maintenance Inc., and a Norwich order against third-party financial institutions.

The motion arose from two alleged fraudulent schemes: a "bust-out" sales scheme involving chargebacks on "card not present" transactions (approx. $293,802.20) and an "unreferenced refunds" scheme exploiting a system vulnerability (approx. $6,501,376.79).

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, a real risk of asset dissipation, and that irreparable harm would occur without the injunction.

The court also found the Norwich order necessary to trace funds and identify unknown cardholders.

Both the Mareva injunction and Norwich order were granted.

This motion concerned an application for court approval of a full and final settlement of statutory accident benefit claims for an adult under disability.

The applicant, who sustained catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident, sought approval of a $735,000 settlement and the legal fees of his counsel.

The court approved the settlement and its proposed structured payment, finding it fair and reasonable and in the best interest of the person under disability.

However, the court declined to enforce the contingency fee agreement for accident benefits and instead approved a significantly reduced legal fee based on quantum meruit, citing the distinct nature of accident benefit claims compared to tort claims and the minimal legal work required.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) brought a motion for default judgment against Yohance Parsons and Hiclass Union Music Business to recover $59,120 in funds stolen from a CIBC client's account and traced to the defendants' business account.

CIBC had reimbursed its client and was proceeding by way of subrogation.

The court granted default judgment, finding that the defendants were deemed to admit the facts due to their default, including that they were not bona fide purchasers for value without notice.

The court affirmed that the recipients of stolen funds hold them in constructive trust for the rightful owner and that tracing such funds is a matter of right.

The issue of costs was deferred pending the plaintiff's submission of a costs outline.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve a settlement on behalf of Sheila Clarke, a person under disability, arising from a slip and fall incident.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice due to numerous deficiencies in the supporting materials.

The court found issues with redactions without justification, absence of minutes of settlement, lack of medical information and assessment of damages, insufficient liability assessment, and deficient affidavits from both the lawyer and the litigation guardian.

Furthermore, the court noted a lack of detailed evidence regarding legal fees and disbursements, including a contingency fee agreement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve a settlement for a minor plaintiff's personal injury claim.

The court dismissed the motion, citing two primary concerns: the minor's litigation guardian (his father) was also acting as counsel for the plaintiffs, violating Rules 7.05(3) and 15.01, which require a litigation guardian to be represented by a lawyer.

Additionally, the litigation guardian was also an FLA claimant, creating a potential conflict of interest as he had a personal stake in the settlement allocation, which was not adequately explained.

The court emphasized the necessity of independent legal representation and a dispassionate assessment to protect the minor's best interests.

The plaintiff, a mortgagee, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant mortgagor for arrears, interest, and possession of the property.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court granted default judgment for the principal amount of the mortgage, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and possession of the property.

However, the court denied several additional fees claimed by the plaintiff, including renewal fees, NSF fees, and failure to discharge fees, finding that they were not sufficiently proven by the pleadings and evidence, or that they constituted penalties in contravention of the Interest Act.

The court emphasized that even with deemed admissions in default, the plaintiff must still prove legal entitlement to the damages claimed.