Associate Judge Barbara McAfee

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order requiring the defendants to serve a further and better affidavit of documents in an action arising from the alleged breach of an agreement for the sale of a medical practice.

The defendants opposed, arguing the requested documents were irrelevant, disproportionate, and that the motion should be refused due to the lack of a discovery plan under Rule 29.1.05(1).

The court found the requested OHIP billing sheets, reconciliations, and bank statements were relevant to the pleadings and ordered their production, awarding costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs moved to exempt a $145,000 personal injury settlement from garnishment by a non-party judgment creditor.

The creditor argued the plaintiffs lacked clean hands due to past conduct in evading judgment.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct did not amount to a lack of clean hands and held that damages for pain and suffering, along with associated pre-judgment interest and legal costs, are exempt from garnishment.

The motion was granted, and the full settlement amount was exempted.

The defendant and plaintiff by counterclaim, Donald Wright, brought a motion seeking leave to amend his statement of defence and counterclaim and to compel answers to certain follow-up discovery questions.

The responding parties opposed the motion and sought to strike an affidavit.

The Master granted leave to amend the pleadings, finding no new cause of action or non-compensable prejudice.

The Master also ruled on the follow-up questions, ordering one to be answered and two not to be answered.

The preliminary issue regarding the striking of an affidavit was dismissed.

The defendants brought an urgent motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) that the plaintiff had obtained without notice.

The central issue was whether the plaintiff failed to disclose a "No Registration" clause (NRC) in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) as a material fact.

The court found that the NRC was not material because the vendor had terminated the APS prior to the CPL motion.

Furthermore, the NRC did not explicitly prohibit CPL registration.

Applying the Dhunna factors, the court determined that justice favored maintaining the CPL, given the uniqueness of the land, the plaintiff's intent to reside there, and the inadequacy of damages as a remedy.

The defendants' motion to discharge the CPL was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

This motion concerned compelling answers to undertakings and refusals given on examinations for discovery in a medical malpractice action.

The plaintiffs alleged negligent treatment of Yasmeen Mukhtiar following a C-section, leading to paralysis and a diagnosis of conversion disorder.

The court reviewed the scope of discovery, the relevance of questions, and the principles governing hypothetical questions in medical malpractice cases.

It also considered the role and responsibilities of the Most Responsible Physician (MRP) in a multidisciplinary team.

The Master largely granted the plaintiffs' requests, ordering many of the defendant physicians to provide further answers and documents.

The plaintiff moved for an extension of the deadline to set the action down for trial, while the defendants brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The action, stemming from a 1998 arrest, had been stayed due to related criminal proceedings until 2017.

The court applied a contextual approach, considering the preference for merits-based decisions and timely resolution.

It found the plaintiff provided an adequate explanation for the delay, including the criminal proceedings and subsequent steps taken to gather evidence.

The court was not satisfied that the defendants demonstrated actual prejudice.

Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was granted, extending the deadline, and the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss for delay was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend her notice of action, extend the time to file a statement of claim, and extend the time to serve the amended notice of action and statement of claim in a medical malpractice case.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's deliberate decision to put her case on hold for 20 months, without contact with her lawyer, demonstrated a lack of intention to pursue the claim.

The court also found that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer significant prejudice due to the passage of over four years since the events, leading to memory loss among medical professionals and loss of opportunity for timely investigation by the hospital.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to prevent the dismissal of his action for delay.

The action arose from a residential fire and involved a claim against his insurer.

The court found that the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, as the parties had been engaged in the appraisal process under the Insurance Act and the defendants had not objected to the delay.

The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The action was allowed to continue, and a timetable was set.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant to comply with a previous court order requiring him to answer undertakings given during an examination in aid of execution.

The court reviewed the outstanding undertakings and found that the defendant had not demonstrated best efforts to answer several of them.

The defendant was ordered to answer the outstanding undertakings within 90 days and pay costs of $1,000.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to restore their action to the trial list after it was struck due to a failure to deliver an amended trial record.

The underlying action involved allegations of lost or damaged personal property following a residential fire.

The court applied the Nissar test and found the plaintiffs provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, primarily related to their former counsel's retirement, and that the defendant suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The motion was granted with no costs.

The defendant in a solicitor's negligence action brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs, who were placed into receivership allegedly due to the defendant's failure to attend a receivership application, opposed the motion on the basis of impecuniosity.

The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated they could not raise security from their shareholders and that their claim was not plainly devoid of merit.

The motion was dismissed, and costs of $5,500 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sought leave to withdraw alleged admissions in their statement of claim and to amend it, specifically regarding whether plaintiff Mekhaeel signed an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS).

The defendant opposed the withdrawal of the admission concerning paragraph 4.

The court applied the three-part test for withdrawing an admission, finding that while a triable issue existed, the plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the change in position and that significant prejudice to the defendant, uncompensable by costs, would result due to the passage of time, the defendant's reliance on the original pleading, and potential limitation period issues for third-party claims.

The motion to withdraw the admission at paragraph 4 was dismissed, though an unopposed amendment to paragraph 2 was granted.

The plaintiff, Hoodex Industries Limited, brought a motion for leave to amend its amended statement of claim and for an order to have its action tried together with another related action (CV-18-605074).

The motion was largely on consent, except for the defendants Innova Toronto Inc. and Tahsin Bondokji (the "Innova defendants") who opposed both requests.

The court granted leave to amend the statement of claim, finding that the proposed amendments disclosed reasonable causes of action against the Innova defendants, including misappropriation of confidential information, intentional interference with economic relations, conversion, and conspiracy.

The court also ordered the two actions to be tried together, citing common questions of fact, significant overlap of evidence, and the risk of inconsistent findings if tried separately, in line with the principles of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and ensuring expeditious and least expensive determination of civil proceedings.

Costs were awarded to Hoodex.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his defamation action for delay.

The plaintiff attributed the delay to prioritizing criminal proceedings (where he was ultimately acquitted), his father's illness, and other litigation.

The court applied a contextual approach, balancing the preference for merits-based decisions with the promotion of timely resolution and the importance of litigation finality.

While the plaintiff's explanation for delay and missing the deadline was deemed insufficient, the court found no significant prejudice to the defendant, noting the case's reliance on documents and the defendant's own inaction.

The motion was granted, the dismissal order set aside, and a new timetable was ordered.

Costs of $5,000 were fixed against the plaintiff, payable to the defendant in the cause.

The third party brought a motion for default judgment on its counterclaim against the defendants, while the defendants brought a motion declaring the counterclaim improper.

The parties resolved the substantive issues on consent but could not agree on costs.

The court reviewed the conduct of both parties, noting the third party's premature noting in default and the defendants' failure to retain counsel promptly.

The court concluded that both parties bore some responsibility for the costs incurred and ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim to add new causes of action for specific performance and rescission.

The defendants opposed the amendments, arguing they were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to rebut the statutory presumption of discoverability, as there was no evidence establishing when the plaintiff actually discovered the claims.

The opposed amendments were denied as statute-barred or untenable, while unopposed amendments were granted.

The defendants were awarded costs of the motion and costs thrown away for an aborted examination for discovery.

The defendants abandoned their motion for summary judgment after the plaintiff successfully moved to extensively amend the statement of claim.

Both parties sought costs of the abandoned motion.

The court found that the plaintiff's late and extensive amendments, which prompted the defendants to reconsider and abandon their motion, constituted exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the presumptive rule that a responding party is entitled to costs of an abandoned motion.

The court awarded costs of the abandoned motion to the defendants in the amount of $33,540.66.

The plaintiffs sought costs of a motion on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued that no costs should be awarded due to divided success.

The court noted that relief was consented to, some relief was withdrawn, and success was divided on the contested relief.

The court found no conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs and ordered that the parties bear their own costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

While most defendants consented, one defendant opposed the motion.

The court applied a contextual approach, finding that the litigation delay was adequately explained by intervening motions and appeals, the deadline was missed due to inadvertence, the motion was brought promptly, and there was no actual prejudice to the defendants.

The court granted the motion, set aside the dismissal order, and directed the action be set down for trial within 30 days, with no costs awarded.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to have the plaintiff's long-term disability action and a separate tort action arising from a motor vehicle accident heard together or consecutively.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing prejudice due to the actions being at different stages of litigation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the actions shared some common facts, the issues were discrete, and delaying the advanced long-term disability action would prejudice the plaintiff.