Associate Judge Barbara McAfee

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend her statement of claim to add a janitorial company as a defendant in a slip and fall action, after the presumptive two-year limitation period had expired.

The proposed defendant opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to investigate the claim within the limitation period.

The court found the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, as her paralegal believed in-house staff handled internal spills.

The court granted leave to add the defendant, noting the limitation defence could be pleaded and determined at trial or summary judgment.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to exceed the seven-hour limit for examination for discovery of the defendants' representative and an order allowing them to move without notice to strike the statement of defence for non-compliance with undertakings.

The court granted leave for an additional four hours of examination, exceeding the seven-hour limit by 2.4 hours, citing the voluminous additional productions and numerous undertakings.

However, the court denied the request to move without notice to strike the defence, emphasizing that striking a defence is an extreme remedy and defendants should have notice and an opportunity to respond to such a motion.

A non-party, Dennis Cibulka, brought a motion to set aside a default judgment of foreclosure and to be added as a defendant in an action concerning a residential property he has occupied since 1959.

The court found that Cibulka was a necessary party to the action and that the interests of justice favored granting the relief sought.

The motion to set aside default judgment was made promptly upon Cibulka learning of it, there was a reasonable prospect of payment if the mortgage was enforceable, and significant net equity in the property would otherwise result in a windfall to the plaintiff.

The court granted the motion, adding Cibulka as a defendant, setting aside the default judgment, and awarded costs to Cibulka.

The plaintiffs moved for answers to undertakings and questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendants.

The action concerned a claim for repayment of a loan and monies held for safekeeping.

The court applied the relevance test under Rule 31.06 and proportionality principles under Rules 29.2.03 and 1.04(1.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Master ordered the defendants to answer most of the outstanding questions and produce financial documents, including bank statements and tax returns, for specified periods, finding them relevant to the pleadings and credibility.

The motion was substantially successful for the plaintiffs, who were awarded costs.

The defendant corporation brought a motion for leave under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to be represented by Hossein Assadpour, a non-lawyer.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court granted leave, finding that the defendant, a closely held corporation with Assadpour as its sole officer, director, and shareholder, met the criteria for non-lawyer representation.

The court considered factors such as Assadpour's authorization, connection to the corporation, the corporation's closely held nature, protection of stakeholders' interests, and Assadpour's reasonable capability to comprehend and advocate the issues.

The court also considered the corporation's financial incapacity to retain counsel, though noted it was not a necessary factor.

No costs were awarded.

The defendant Lorraine Brown-Comrie brought a motion to dismiss the action due to the plaintiff Paula Tomlinson's non-compliance with previous court orders and failure to answer undertakings from discovery.

The plaintiff opposed, citing recent settlement negotiations.

The court, noting that dismissal is a remedy of last resort, denied the motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiff extensions to comply with all outstanding obligations.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

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

The action had previously been dismissed by summary judgment, and an appeal of that dismissal was also dismissed.

The court found that the Registrar's dismissal was made without knowledge of the prior judicial dismissal.

The motion to set aside the Registrar's order was dismissed at this time, but with a condition: the Registrar's order would be set aside if the plaintiff is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and subsequently succeeds in setting aside the summary judgment dismissal.

The plaintiff, Amos Tayts, brought a motion for leave to amend his amended statement of claim.

The defendants opposed specific proposed amendments, categorizing them into claims for breach of 'Zavet Group Terms' and breach of trust after the limitation period, pleadings of evidence, and withdrawal of an admission.

The court granted leave for all proposed amendments, finding that they did not introduce new causes of action after the limitation period, were sufficient for pleading purposes, and constituted necessary particulars rather than mere evidence.

The court reserved the issue of costs thrown away to the trial judge or summary judgment judge, but fixed the costs of the motion at $10,000.00 payable by the defendants to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking answers to undertakings, questions taken under advisement, and questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendant's representative.

The action concerned an accident where the plaintiff's vehicle allegedly dropped into a hole in the road.

The court applied the relevance test under Rule 31.06 and proportionality principles under Rule 29.2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Master ruled on each contested question, ordering some to be answered (e.g., reason for representative selection, statutory duty to maintain streets, specific practice manuals, cause of hole) and refusing others (e.g., overly broad requests for manuals, questions about training or budgets not pleaded).

Some undertakings were confirmed as answered, and others were ordered to be completed by consent.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking answers to questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendants.

The questions related to allegations that the defendants conspired to circumvent obligations under a Non-Competition Agreement.

The court applied the relevance test under Rule 31.06 and proportionality principles under Rule 29.2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the questions relevant and that the defendants had refused to provide full answers, despite offering partial undertakings.

The motion was granted, and the defendants were ordered to answer the questions and pay costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Daniel Avon, brought a motion seeking answers to questions refused or taken under advisement during the examination for discovery of the defendant, NFP Canada Corp. The action involves claims of constructive dismissal by the plaintiff and a counterclaim for breach of contract by the defendant.

The Master applied the relevance test under Rule 31.06 and proportionality principles under Rule 29.2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Master ordered answers to questions concerning the nature of a new position offered to the plaintiff and an alleged pattern of behavior, finding them relevant and proportionate.

However, two questions seeking broad access to texts and emails were deemed overly broad and not required to be answered.

No costs were awarded, as both parties achieved partial success.

The defendant brought two motions: one to compel the plaintiff to re-attend for oral discovery and another for security for costs.

The plaintiff opposed both.

The court ordered the plaintiff to complete her discovery via video conference due to medical reasons, with shared costs.

The court also granted the security for costs motion, finding the plaintiff ordinarily resident outside Ontario, and ordered $15,000 in security for future costs, payable in tranches.

No costs were awarded for the motions.

The moving defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, a corporation and an individual, under Rule 56.01(1)(d).

The court found the defendants failed to meet their initial onus regarding the individual plaintiff.

For the corporate plaintiff, while impecuniosity was established, the court declined to order security for costs, finding it would be unjust given the merits of the plaintiff's claim, the defendants' alleged role in causing the impecuniosity, and the delay in bringing the motion.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant Russell Madarash, in his personal capacity and as a representative of the other defendants, to attend a mandatory mediation session in Toronto in person.

The defendants argued that Mr. Madarash, residing in Regina, Saskatchewan, lacked the financial resources for personal attendance and should be permitted to attend via telephone or video conference.

The court, applying principles regarding exemptions from personal attendance at mediation, found that Mr. Madarash had not provided sufficient evidence to establish an inability to pay for travel costs.

The motion was granted, compelling Mr. Madarash to attend in person, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions refused and taken under advisement during her examination for discovery in a motor vehicle accident claim.

The Master reviewed the specific questions, ordering the plaintiff to answer questions relating to her pre-existing depression, a subsequent motor vehicle accident, and the contact information of her daughter and former partner.

One question was deemed irrelevant and did not need to be answered.

The issue regarding a Manulife file and costs was adjourned.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim but subsequently abandoned and withdrew it.

The self-represented defendant and the proposed defendant, who had retained counsel, both sought costs of $1,000 for the abandoned motion.

The court awarded costs of $750 to the proposed defendant and $500 to the defendant, payable by the plaintiff within 30 days.

The defendant, Ikaria, brought a motion for security for costs.

The plaintiff agreed to post security, leaving only the quantum in dispute.

The defendant sought $244,636.81 up to mediation, while the plaintiff proposed $40,000.

The court found the defendant's estimate unreasonable and disproportionate, particularly regarding past motions, expert fees, and discovery attendance.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in the all-inclusive amount of $100,000, payable in three tranches.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where the moving party was successful.

Despite the moving party's success on the underlying motion, the court declined to award costs to any party.

This decision was based on the moving party receiving an indulgence and causing a further attendance due to insufficient time scheduling, and the responding parties' unsuccessful opposition.

The court found that a fair disposition was to award no costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order for the defendant to produce and preserve certain documents.

The motion addressed six classes of documents, with one class resolved by consent.

The court ordered the production of delinquency reports, mortgage payment and interest histories for alleged fraud files, and the plaintiff's final Horizon Report showing termination status.

Requests for specific BNS policies and additional communications were dismissed without prejudice, allowing for further motions after examinations for discovery.

The interim preservation order for the ordered documents was continued, but a broader preservation request was denied due to lack of specificity.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order for her examination for discovery by video conference from Lithuania, leave to examine the defendant before trial due to his advanced age, and assignment of the proceeding to case management.

The court granted all three requests, finding it just given the plaintiff's intention to return to Lithuania, the defendant's age, and the serious nature of the allegations.

However, despite the plaintiff's success on the substantive relief, the court awarded $1,000 in costs to the defendant, payable by the plaintiff, citing the plaintiff's insufficient efforts to resolve matters prior to and after bringing the motion.