Associate Judge Barbara McAfee

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel answers to refusals from the examination for discovery of the defendant insurer's representative.

The underlying action involved a marine insurance claim for contaminated fish, which the insurer denied based on a process exclusion clause.

The Master ordered the insurer to make reasonable inquiries of a former underwriter and to answer questions about similar claims.

However, the Master refused to order production of a legal opinion obtained by the insurer, finding it was protected by solicitor-client privilege and that no waiver had occurred.

The plaintiff, a former commissioned travel agent, brought a motion for leave to amend her statement of claim to allege a partnership, and for further and better affidavits of documents.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for further and better affidavits of documents from the plaintiff.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend, finding no non-compensable prejudice.

The court also ordered both parties to produce various financial, banking, and sales records relevant to the issues of the relationship's nature, mitigation, and alleged fraud, resulting in divided success.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing its $104 million action for delay.

The action involved claims of breach of contract and fiduciary duty against a former director.

The court found that the litigation delay was adequately explained by the ongoing discoveries and undertakings, and that the failure to set the action down for trial was due to counsel's inadvertence.

Finding no actual prejudice to the defendants, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal order.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing their motor vehicle accident tort claim for delay.

The delay was primarily caused by the plaintiffs' former counsel focusing on statutory accident benefits claims and mistakenly believing the defendant had been noted in default.

The court applied a contextual approach, finding the delay was adequately explained, resulted from counsel's inadvertence, and caused no actual prejudice to the defendant.

The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside.

The respondent to an application brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused during the cross-examination of the applicant's representative.

The underlying application sought a declaration that a first right of refusal was void.

The Master categorized the 20 refused questions into four categories and ordered the applicant to answer 19 of them, finding them relevant to the issues and credibility.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the moving party based on the parties' agreement regarding the threshold of success.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant to answer a refusal given during an examination in aid of execution and to require the defendant's representative to re-attend the examination.

The refusal concerned the production of the defendant's electronic QuickBooks bookkeeping data files.

The court ordered the production of the files, finding them relevant under Rule 60.18(2), subject to conditions protecting the personal information of employees.

The court also ordered the representative to re-attend the examination in person and awarded costs of $1,500 to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant to answer nine questions refused during an examination for discovery.

The underlying action involved an accident at a property owned by the defendant.

The court ordered the defendant to answer questions regarding the specific property, limited to the timeframe commencing from the date the defendant acquired ownership.

Questions seeking information about all 160 of the defendant's properties or spanning 20 years were deemed too broad and were not ordered to be answered.

No costs were awarded as success on the motion was divided.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) to establish a timetable for the remainder of the action, which involved a claim for unpaid construction work on a custom home.

The defendants sought to have the action dismissed for delay.

The Master found that the plaintiffs had an acceptable explanation for the delay, as their former lawyer failed to advance the action despite their instructions, and that the defendants suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The motion was granted, allowing the action to proceed with a new deadline to set it down for trial.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and default judgment obtained by the plaintiff bank.

The court applied the five-part test from Mountain View Farms and found that the motion was brought promptly, there was a plausible explanation for the default due to ongoing refinancing discussions, and the defendants had an arguable defence regarding alleged errors in the loan amount and term.

The motion was granted and the default judgment was set aside.

The defendant and plaintiff by counterclaim brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of defence and counterclaim to increase its damages claim from $1 million to $7 million.

The plaintiff opposed the amendments, arguing they constituted a new cause of action and were statute-barred, and that the delay in seeking the amendments caused prejudice.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that the proposed amendments merely particularized damages arising from a breach of contract that was already pleaded, and therefore did not constitute a new cause of action.

The court also found that any prejudice from the delay could be compensated for by costs or an adjournment, and ordered a further examination for discovery limited to the amendments.

This case involved a reference to determine the valuation of an insurance loss following a water damage incident at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO).

The applicants, property insurers (HIROC, HML, FM), sought to recover the amount they paid to CHEO from the respondent, a boiler and machinery insurer (RSA).

The court found that the applicants' valuation was based on their own replacement cost policies, which differed from RSA's policy mandating repair or replacement with property of 'like kind, capacity, size and quality.' The court accepted RSA's valuation of $104,541.85, which was significantly lower than the applicants' claim of $732,031.41, as it was the only valuation that properly applied the RSA policy's terms.

The defendants brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused on the examination for discovery of the plaintiff Gabriella Brockie.

The plaintiffs had refused to answer based on relevance and claims of solicitor-client, litigation, and common interest privilege.

The court found that solicitor-client privilege had been waived by implication due to fairness, as the plaintiffs were seeking reimbursement of legal costs under an insurance policy, thereby putting the nature of those costs directly in issue.

Litigation privilege was deemed inapplicable because the underlying Competition Bureau investigation had concluded, and the current action for indemnity did not share its essential purpose.

Common interest privilege was also rejected.

The motion to compel answers was granted, and a sealing order was issued for any answers required to be filed with the court.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend his statement of claim to include further claims under the Human Rights Code and to add David M. Fine as a defendant on a common employer basis.

The plaintiff also sought an order for a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendant and a litigation timetable.

The court granted leave for the Human Rights Code amendments, finding they did not constitute new causes of action.

However, leave to add David M. Fine as a defendant was denied because the limitation period had expired, and the plaintiff had always been aware of Fine's role.

The court ordered the defendant to provide a further and better affidavit of documents for specific items and established a comprehensive litigation timetable, including mandatory mediation before examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend the statement of claim and leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against two properties, alleging fraudulent conveyances and/or resulting/constructive trusts.

The court granted leave to amend the statement of claim, finding no uncompensable prejudice.

For the CPL, the court applied the tests for fraudulent conveyances and found a prima facie case of fraud and "badges of fraud" for the Spillsbury property.

For the Wispi property, the court found a triable issue regarding a resulting or constructive trust based on the source of funds.

Both requests for CPL were granted.

A motion was brought seeking various forms of disclosure and re-attendance at discovery.

Some matters were resolved by consent, including a defendant municipality serving a supplementary affidavit of documents and a representative attending discovery for up to 2 hours.

The court addressed the requirement for leave to bring the contested parts of the motion, denying leave for most requests as they did not fall under Rule 48.04(2)(b).

For the remaining contested relief concerning a co-defendant's supplementary affidavit, the court declined to order it as the co-defendant agreed to comply with their obligations.

The scope of the municipality's re-attendance was limited to documents in the supplementary affidavit.

The court also ordered the moving party to pay installment costs thrown away for amendments to the statement of claim to the responding parties.

The defendant ABO Wireless Solutions Inc. brought a motion for leave to be represented by a non-lawyer, Khanh Kim Le Bui, who is its president, sole officer, director, and shareholder.

The defendant Bell Mobility Inc. opposed the motion, while the plaintiff took no position.

The court considered factors for granting leave under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including authorization, connection to the corporation, corporate structure, protection of stakeholders, representative's capability, and financial capacity.

The court found Ms. Bui reasonably capable and that granting leave was in the interests of justice, particularly for a closely held, non-operating corporation.

The motion was granted, with no costs awarded.

The defendant, a dissolved corporation, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a Russian corporation with no assets in Ontario.

The court applied the two-step analysis under Rule 56.01 and found the defendant met the initial burden.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that an order for security would be unjust, as the merits of the complex case were deemed neutral and the defendant's dissolved status did not preclude the order.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post $25,000 in installments up to the pending summary judgment motion.

The defendant, State Farm, brought a motion for a neuropsychological examination of the plaintiff, Tie Cindy Li, by Dr. Mark Dowhaniuk.

The motion was brought under ss. 40(1) and 42(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) and, alternatively, Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiff claimed catastrophic impairment due to a motor vehicle accident, alleging cognitive impairment, among other issues.

The court found the examination necessary to determine the plaintiff's entitlement to benefits and whether the impairment was catastrophic, preferring the defendant's experts' opinions over the plaintiff's.

The motion was granted, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

This supplemental decision clarifies a typographical error in the accrued interest calculation from a prior ruling dated September 6, 2016.

It sets the final amount payable by the defendants to the plaintiff at $131,095.48.

The court declined the plaintiff's request for an additional tax amount and the defendants' request for an interest credit.

It also declined the plaintiff's request for an order regarding future repairs.

The decision outlines the final payment schedule, mortgage discharge obligations, and dismisses the action without further costs assessment.

The defendants brought a motion seeking several orders, including declaring the statement of claim a nullity due to alleged non-compliance with the Mortgages Act regarding suspension of enforcement rights and service of notice of sale, striking the statement of claim for insufficient material facts, discharging the mortgage upon payment of a specific amount into court, and ceasing rent collection.

The court dismissed all of the defendants' requests, finding that the plaintiff had complied with the Mortgages Act, the statement of claim was sufficiently pleaded, and the proposed discharge amount was unreasonable.

The court instead set out a higher, conditional amount for mortgage discharge, including costs and outstanding fees, which the defendants could pay to obtain a discharge and avoid further litigation.

The court also affirmed the plaintiff's right to collect rent based on the mortgage's assignment of rents clause.