Audrey P. Ramsay

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend a Mareva injunction related to an alleged $1.4 million renovation fraud.

A defendant brought a cross-motion to discharge the order against him, and a non-party sought relief from an order compelling his examination under oath.

The court extended the Mareva order, dismissed the defendant's cross-motion as premature due to missing financial disclosure, and suspended the examination order against the non-party due to lack of service and reliance on implausible hearsay evidence.

The court also provided strict directions regarding the proper use of CaseLines and hyperlinking for future attendances.

The applicant, Link 427 General Partnership, sought to enforce an interim arbitral order compelling two non-parties, Fay Marzuq and Melissa Raffoul, to attend examinations for discovery.

The court dismissed the application, holding that an arbitrator lacks jurisdiction over non-parties to an arbitration agreement, and therefore the court would not enforce such an order.

The court also noted, as an alternative reason for dismissal, that the information sought from the non-parties had already been provided.

The court issued a supplementary endorsement to its April 6, 2023, settlement approval for a minor plaintiff in a dog bite case.

This endorsement clarified the OHIP subrogated interest, approving a negotiated amount of $1,661.09, which included legal fees for the Ministry's interest.

It also reviewed the plaintiffs' disbursement list, disallowing certain items such as scanning, binding, and faxes, which were deemed standard office overhead, reducing the allowed disbursements from $2,608.44 to $1,358.74.

This application sought court approval for a $30,000 accident benefit settlement for a minor, Elliot Mezzatesta, whose mother died in a motor vehicle accident.

The settlement covered past and future medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The court found the settlement to be in the minor's best interest, considering his ineligibility for weekly disability benefits and catastrophic designation, and the consumption of available limits.

Legal fees were also approved.

The plaintiff sought an assessment of costs after accepting a Rule 49 offer to settle from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company, statutory third parties.

The court had previously awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs for the tort action but denied costs related to the recovery of statutory accident benefits (SABS) and Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits.

Both parties sought costs for the assessment motion.

The court found that success was divided, as the plaintiff succeeded on the quantum of legal fees for the tort action and disbursements, but failed on SABS and CPP costs.

State Farm failed to resist the quantum of legal fees.

Given the divided success and the complexity of some issues, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The litigation guardian for a minor plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 7 to approve a settlement of $118,103 for a dog bite claim.

The court found the settlement amount for the minor's damages to be fair and reasonable.

However, the court declined to approve the requested legal fees of $39,121.61, finding them unreasonable for a straightforward strict liability case that settled shortly after pleadings, and instead approved fees of $13,950 plus HST.

The court also suspended approval of disbursements and the OHIP subrogated claim pending further evidence.

An application by a litigation guardian to approve a settlement on behalf of her son, a person under disability, was dismissed.

The settlement for statutory accident benefits was reached almost four years prior, but the materials for judicial approval were significantly delayed.

By the time the application was before the court, the minor had turned 18, and his consent, required under Rule 7.08(4)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, was not obtained or filed, leading to the dismissal of the application.

This is a costs endorsement following motions by three groups of defendants to strike the plaintiff's fresh as amended statement of claim.

The court had previously substantially granted the motion by the 1Plus12 Corporation defendants, dismissed the motions by the Ricci and Karp defendants to strike the statement of claim against them, and struck the plaintiff's affidavit.

This endorsement determines the costs payable between the parties.

The 1Plus12 defendants were awarded $17,000 in partial indemnity costs from the plaintiff, as they were substantially successful.

The Ricci defendants were awarded $9,000 in partial indemnity costs from the plaintiff, despite their motion to stay being dismissed, due to the necessity of responding to allegations of criminal conduct that were struck.

No costs were awarded to or against the Karp defendants, as their motion to strike the claim against them was dismissed, although they succeeded in striking the plaintiff's affidavit.

The minor plaintiff was struck by a vehicle while crossing the road after collecting mail.

A settlement of $400,000 was reached at mediation.

The litigation guardian brought a motion for court approval of the settlement, legal fees under a contingency fee agreement, and a referral fee.

The court approved the settlement amount for the minor plaintiff but found the contingency fee agreement and referral fee agreement unenforceable due to non-compliance with statutory and Law Society requirements.

Legal fees were reduced and approved on a quantum meruit basis.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old managerial employee with 38 years of service, was terminated without cause shortly after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

He brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal, including a 30-month notice period, lost Restricted Stock Units (RSUs), and bonuses.

The court granted summary judgment, awarding a 27-month notice period due to exceptional circumstances, including his age, lengthy service, specialized skills, and the economic impact of the pandemic.

The court also awarded damages for RSUs that would have vested during the notice period, finding the termination provisions did not unambiguously oust his common law entitlements, but dismissed the claim for discretionary bonuses.

This is an appeal from an Associate Judge's interlocutory order dismissing a motion to extend discovery time limits in a simplified procedure action and to examine non-parties.

The Associate Judge had concluded she lacked discretion to extend time under Rule 76.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellate court found that the Associate Judge erred in this conclusion, holding that general rules (such as Rule 3.02) allow for extension of time limits in simplified procedure actions unless explicitly exempted.

The court set aside the order dismissing the appellants' motion and dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal regarding costs and examination of non-parties.

The matter was remitted to the Associate Judge for further orders consistent with the finding of discretion.

This is a supplementary endorsement to a previous decision, clarifying and varying aspects of a costs award.

The court confirmed that HST is to be added to the partial indemnity costs and disbursements awarded to the plaintiff.

The amount of allowed disbursements was varied by agreement of the parties.

The court also addressed a request for reconsideration regarding the defendant's liability for the plaintiff's legal fees incurred in pursuing accident benefits, reiterating that all submissions and authorities, including the principles from Cadieux v. Cloutier, were considered in the original determination, and no further reconsideration was required on that point.

The applicant, a former employee, brought an application seeking payment of outstanding interest and interpretation of a share purchase agreement after selling shares back to the respondent company.

The dispute arose over the method of calculating and timing of interest payments on annual installments for the shares.

The court clarified the interest calculation, ruling that interest should be calculated on the outstanding principal balance, and ordered the respondent to pay overdue interest and reissue correct tax documents.

However, the court dismissed the applicant's claims of repudiation, anticipatory breach, and breach of the duty of good faith by the respondent, finding that the respondent's conduct, while imperfect, did not amount to a fundamental breach of the agreement.

Costs were awarded to the applicant due to the respondent's failure to respond in a timely fashion, which necessitated the application.

The applicant restaurant chain sought a declaration of coverage under its commercial 'all risks' insurance policy for business interruption losses caused by government-mandated closures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant argued that coverage was triggered under the policy's civil authority and ingress/egress extensions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the policy required 'direct physical loss or damage' to trigger coverage.

The court held that the COVID-19 virus and the resulting government orders did not cause direct physical loss or damage to the insured's property, and therefore the losses did not fall within the policy's coverage.

Following the settlement of a motor vehicle accident tort claim for $85,000, the plaintiff brought a motion to determine costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs for the tort action, as well as recovery of substantial legal fees incurred in pursuing statutory accident benefits (SABs) and Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits.

The court awarded the plaintiff $84,075 in fees and $58,983.63 in disbursements for the tort action, rejecting the statutory third party insurer's argument that its exposure was limited to the $200,000 statutory minimum.

However, the court declined to award costs for the pursuit of SABs, finding the plaintiff failed to address the factors set out in Cadieux v. Cloutier, and denied costs for pursuing CPP benefits as they were not incidental to the proceeding.

The plaintiff's lawyer of record passed away, and his firm brought a motion to be removed from the record and for a charging order.

The motion was adjourned because adverse parties raised concerns about the plaintiff's capacity.

The court reviewed the legal framework for appointing a litigation guardian and ordering a capacity assessment under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Courts of Justice Act.

The court directed the parties to consult and establish a framework to address the plaintiff's capacity before proceeding with the motion.

The applicant, owner of a penthouse unit that is twice the size of other units in the building, sought an oppression remedy under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The applicant objected to an amendment to the condominium declaration that changed the cost-sharing of common expenses from an equal share per unit to a share based on unit size.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the board's decision to amend the declaration to ensure equitable contribution to common expenses and adequately fund the reserve fund was reasonable and not oppressive.

The applicant's claim for damages was also dismissed.

The plaintiff, a co-founder of 1PLUS12, brought an action against numerous defendants, including the corporation's lawyers and investors, alleging a Ponzi scheme and claiming unpaid compensation.

Several groups of defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court struck the plaintiff's affidavit and the claims against the investors, finding the plaintiff lacked standing to advance claims on their behalf.

The court also struck certain scandalous and irrelevant paragraphs from the pleadings.

However, the court dismissed the motions to strike the entirety of the claims against the defendant lawyers and law firms, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims for negligence and misrepresentation would fail.

The plaintiff moved for default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff was hired under a fixed-term contract that classified him as an independent contractor.

The court found that the plaintiff was misclassified and was in fact an employee or dependent contractor.

The court also held that the termination clause in the contract was unenforceable because its 'for cause' provision violated the Employment Standards Act.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the balance of the fixed-term contract, unpaid wages, vacation pay, and holiday pay, but claims for punitive and moral damages were dismissed.

Following a successful trial in a slip and fall action, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle and the defendant's conduct.

The court found the offer to settle was served six days before trial, missing the mandatory seven-day requirement under Rule 49.10, and thus did not trigger substantial indemnity costs.

The court also found the self-represented corporate defendant's conduct was not abusive or reprehensible.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $170,000 in fees plus disbursements and HST, along with prejudgment interest.