Audrey P. Ramsay

The plaintiff moved for judgment to enforce Minutes of Settlement purportedly executed following a pre-trial conference regarding a dispute over beneficial ownership of two condominium properties.

The defendants opposed, arguing they did not agree to transfer the property as a trustee to a beneficial owner and felt pressured to sign.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the evidentiary record deficient and conflicting, with three different versions of the Minutes of Settlement presented and no direct evidence from the plaintiff confirming his signature.

A trial was directed to determine whether a binding settlement agreement was actually reached.

The respondent moved to quash an appeal of an arbitral costs award on the basis that the appellants failed to seek leave to appeal under s. 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellants argued that the Arbitration Act and their arbitration agreement provided broad appeal rights without the need for leave.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the appeal was not manifestly devoid of merit and that the requirement for leave in commercial arbitrations with broad appeal agreements remains an open question to be determined by the judge hearing the appeal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a $110,000 settlement for a minor plaintiff who fractured his tibia after slipping on ice in the defendants' parking garage.

The court found the settlement amount, which accounted for 20% contributory negligence, to be fair and reasonable.

However, the court refused to approve the 30% contingency fee agreement, finding it was not properly executed or explained to the litigation guardian.

The court voided the agreement and assessed the legal fees at 20% of the damages.

In a costs decision following dismissal of a negligent misrepresentation action as statute-barred and dismissal of the defendants' counterclaim, the court held the defendants were the successful parties in the main action and presumptively entitled to costs, while the plaintiffs were separately entitled to costs of defending the counterclaim.

The court rejected substantial indemnity costs based on allegations in the pleadings and on a purportedly favourable Rule 49 offer because the offer required an overly broad release and also included the counterclaim, making comparison with the judgment impossible.

Applying the Rule 57 factors, the court fixed the defendants' fees on a partial indemnity basis and allowed full disbursements, including expert disbursements for experts not called where the reports were reasonably necessary.

The plaintiffs were awarded a discrete amount for the counterclaim.

The applicant, a minor, sought court approval under Rule 7.08 for a $22,500 full and final settlement of her statutory accident benefits claim with the respondent insurer.

The minor sustained physical and severe psychological injuries after being struck by a vehicle as a pedestrian.

The court adjourned the application, finding the evidentiary record insufficient to determine whether the settlement was fair and reasonable, particularly regarding whether the minor's psychological injuries might meet the threshold for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The plaintiff hotel owner sued the defendant condominium corporation for historical overpayments of shared electricity costs spanning 2006 to 2015.

The overpayments resulted from a conversion error in an Excel spreadsheet used to calculate the plaintiff's share.

The court found the defendant was unjustly enriched and ordered repayment of $730,058.99.

The court rejected the defendant's limitation period defence, finding the error was not reasonably discoverable until a consultant identified it in 2017.

The court also dismissed the defendant's claim for equitable set-off regarding alleged underpayments in other areas.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's product liability action for failing to participate at trial, the successful defendant sought costs of $139,739.85 plus disbursements on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding that the defendant's offers to settle did not trigger Rule 49 consequences and the plaintiff's conduct did not warrant an elevated scale.

Noting that the defendant was represented by in-house counsel who did not docket time, and that the amount claimed was excessive with duplication of effort, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale at $36,000 plus HST and $7,752.05 in disbursements.

During a civil jury trial for a slip and fall claim, the plaintiff moved to discharge the jury following the defendants' closing address.

The plaintiff argued that defence counsel's closing submissions contained numerous transgressions, including misstating evidence, expressing personal opinions, referring to unproven hearsay, and breaching the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The trial judge agreed, finding that the cumulative effect of the improper statements and trial conduct created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice that could not be cured by correcting instructions.

The motion was granted, the jury was discharged, and the trial was concluded by judge alone.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for damages after slipping and falling on a clear, greasy cleaning substance outside an elevator on the defendants' premises.

The court found the defendants 100% liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act, as their cleaner had improperly sprayed the substance onto the elevator doors, causing it to pool on the shiny granite floor without warning signs.

The court rejected arguments of contributory negligence.

The plaintiff suffered a mild traumatic brain injury (concussion) and chronic soft tissue injuries, leading to chronic migraines and neck pain that significantly impacted her career trajectory in the financial sector.

The court awarded $115,000 in general damages, $173,400 for past income loss, $501,500 for future loss of earning capacity (after a 15% contingency deduction), $10,000 for special damages, and $15,000 for past loss of housekeeping capacity.

The plaintiff moved to amend her statement of claim to reduce damages to $200,000, aiming to transfer the action to Rule 76 (simplified procedure) and strike the defendants' jury notice.

The defendants consented to the amendment but opposed the transfer and striking of the jury notice, arguing their right to a civil jury trial was a substantive right protected by transitional provisions in the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to strike the jury notice and transfer the action to Rule 76, holding that the legislative amendments did not retrospectively eliminate the right to a jury trial for notices delivered before January 1, 2020.

The plaintiff, a long-term executive, brought a motion for summary judgment against Air Canada for wrongful dismissal, seeking damages for reasonable notice, lost bonuses, pension benefits, group health benefits, and flight privileges following his termination with two weeks' notice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted summary judgment, finding a 24-month reasonable notice period was warranted given the plaintiff's age, length of service, senior position, and the pandemic's impact on the airline industry.

The court awarded damages for lost salary, group health benefits, pension accrual (grossed up), and LTIP accrual, and ordered specific performance for retiree flight privileges.

Issues regarding a 2021 AIP bonus and a COVID-19 relief bonus were deferred to a summary trial.

The court also found Air Canada failed to prove the plaintiff did not reasonably mitigate his damages.

The parties settled damages in a motor vehicle accident where a pedestrian was struck.

The defendants brought a motion to vary the usual order of presentation at trial, arguing they bear the onus of disproving negligence under s. 193(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff still bears the burden of proving at least one issue on liability, such as that she was struck by the defendants' vehicle, and therefore there was no basis to depart from the usual order of presentation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to determine the admissibility of a post-surgery photo of the plaintiff's head and a pre-operative CT scan for use in their opening address to the jury in a liability-only trial.

The defendants objected on grounds of relevance and prejudice.

Applying the four-part test from Whitford v. Swan, the court allowed the photo, finding it relevant to explain the plaintiff's lack of memory and not unduly prejudicial, provided it was proven at trial.

However, the CT scan was disallowed due to its narrative commentary and embellishments, which were deemed prejudicial and of low probative value given that damages were settled.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action after the plaintiff, who was self-represented, failed to call any evidence during a ten-day judge-alone trial.

The plaintiff had repeatedly refused to participate in the trial following the denial of his third motion to adjourn.

The court dismissed the action under Rule 52.01(2)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the court's inherent jurisdiction to control its process and ensure fairness to all litigants, particularly when a party deliberately circumvents court orders and delays proceedings.

This endorsement addresses two motions for leave to appeal before the Divisional Court.

The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal a "set aside" order was dismissed with costs awarded to the Defendants.

Concurrently, the Defendants' motion for leave to appeal earlier certification decisions was dismissed without costs, having become moot.

On a summary judgment motion arising from a large-scale online defamation campaign, the court held that the moving parties established on a balance of probabilities that the responding party authored the impugned internet postings.

The court applied the defamation test, found the postings defamatory as to each plaintiff, rejected the limitation defence based on discoverability under the Limitations Act, 2002, and found no genuine issue requiring a trial on liability.

The only issue directed to trial was quantum of damages.

Although the court found intentional breaches of the Anton Piller regime and accepted evidentiary spoliation and adverse inferences, the contempt relief was dismissed without prejudice for procedural reasons.

In an occupier's liability action outstanding for over 11 years, the plaintiff moved to strike the defendants' jury notice, arguing that delay alone constituted prejudice.

The defendants opposed, asserting the motion was premature given the reopening of the economy and recent jury trials.

The court acknowledged the significant delay but noted the plaintiff's lack of affidavit evidence on prejudice.

Balancing the interests, the court provisionally struck the jury notice until February 21, 2022, to await clarity on the resumption of in-person hearings, emphasizing that the personal circumstances of counsel do not override a party's substantive right to a jury trial.

The defendant employer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff employee's action for long-term disability benefits, arguing the claim was statute-barred and an abuse of process due to a prior grievance settlement.

The defendant also sought a contempt order against the plaintiff's counsel for allegedly sharing a mediation brief.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding when the limitation period was triggered, as the parties' conduct and settlement agreement suggested the claim was still under review.

The court also dismissed the abuse of process and contempt motions, noting the settlement did not finally determine benefit entitlement and no court order was breached.

Appeal from a preliminary arbitral award in a dispute arising from a lawyer's departure from a law firm and the transfer of numerous former client files.

The appellant argued that solicitor undertakings and contingency fee agreements, rather than the departure clause in the respondent's employment agreement, should govern the firm's entitlement to fees.

The court held that the undertakings were rejected and, in any event, merged into the settlement agreement, and that the respondent remained an employee when he left the firm.

The arbitrator made no reviewable legal error in concluding that the employment agreement departure clause governed the fee split issue.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought an action for negligent misrepresentation against the defendants, alleging that steam generators purchased for resale in the Former Soviet Union failed to perform as represented in promotional brochures.

The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid invoices.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' action, finding it was statute-barred under the former Limitations Act because the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of the equipment's deficiencies well outside the six-year limitation period.

The court also found no detrimental reliance on the brochures.

The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed for lack of proof.