Chad Devlin Pilkington

In a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff sought a timetabling order for a pending motion and an order to examine the defendant's CEO as a witness on that motion under Rule 39.03.

The defendant's pending motion sought to substitute another corporate representative for discovery, arguing that examining the CEO would be oppressive.

Associate Justice Josefo declined to issue a timetabling order, noting that counsel should cooperate or rely on the timelines in the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also refused the request to examine the CEO, finding it to be an abuse of process and an attempt to circumvent the very issue to be decided in the upcoming substitution motion.

The appellant appealed a case management judge's order permitting the foreign corporate respondent to redact irrelevant personal data from its documentary productions to comply with European and German privacy laws (GDPR and BDSG).

The Divisional Court upheld the redaction protocol, finding the motion judge had jurisdiction to craft a procedural compromise that balanced Ontario discovery obligations with international comity and foreign privacy laws.

However, the court granted the appeal solely to remove an unwarranted requirement that the respondent obtain leave before filing its affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 16, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the respondents to pay the moving party agreed costs of $5,000.

In a certified class action regarding allegedly defective MINI Cooper vehicles, the defendants brought a motion seeking a declaration that the German defendant, BMW-AG, could produce documents using a 'layered approach' to comply with European and German privacy laws (GDPR).

This approach involved initially redacting all personal data.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing that Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure required unredacted production.

The court held that the relevance scrutiny inherent in the Rules of Civil Procedure satisfies the 'Legitimate Interests Exception' under the foreign privacy laws.

The court ordered BMW-AG to produce documents in accordance with a modified Rule 30.03, allowing redactions only for privileged information and personal data that is not relevant to any issue in the action.

The plaintiff in a certified class action brought a refusals motion seeking to compel answers to questions refused during cross-examinations on the defendants' affidavits of documents.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that the questions regarding the scope of documentary production, missing documents, and search terms were premature and irrelevant because the parties had not yet settled a discovery plan.

The court held that the scope of documentary discovery must be determined on the pending discovery plan motion before the adequacy of the affidavits of documents could be assessed.

The applicant estate sought a preservation order to prevent the respondent mining company from dealing with a 1.5% net smelter return royalty interest.

The interest had escheated to the Crown after the corporate owner was dissolved in 1989, and was recently sold by the Public Guardian and Trustee to the respondent.

The applicant acknowledged lacking standing to challenge the sale without a special statute to revive the dissolved corporation, which the Legislature had already refused to pass.

The court dismissed the application, holding that Rule 45.01 does not permit a standalone application for a preservation order in contemplation of a future, possible lawsuit by a party that currently lacks standing.

The applicant and respondent both brought motions to compel answers to refused questions from cross-examinations on affidavits for a pending application.

The underlying application sought an interim preservation order over a mining royalty.

The applicant sought production of unredacted communications, a valuation report, and a purchase agreement between the respondent and the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The respondent sought answers regarding the deceased's will and the applicant's relationship with a third party.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the requested documents and answers were not relevant to the narrow issues to be decided on an interim preservation application.

The respondent, a UK-based company, brought a motion to stay the application against it for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter, or to set aside service ex juris.

The applicant cross-moved to amend its Notice of Application to plead additional grounds for service outside Ontario and to add a claim for inducing breach of contract.

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

However, while the court found service ex juris was validly effected under the amended rules, it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction simpliciter over the foreign respondent because none of the presumptive connecting factors from Van Breda were established.

The application against the foreign respondent was stayed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding a software license agreement dispute.

The trial judge had found that the appellant fundamentally breached the agreement by failing to provide software support and training at no extra cost, relying on the respondent's subjective expectations and prior conduct.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made several extricable errors of law by failing to apply proper principles of contractual interpretation, including ignoring the express language of the written agreements and the entire agreement clause.

A new trial was ordered.

Following a declaration that the respondents were vexatious litigants, the applicants sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the respondents' abusive conduct.

However, the court reduced the costs claimed by one applicant because their counsel was located in Toronto, finding it unreasonable to expect the unsuccessful party to pay higher Toronto rates for a matter heard in the Ottawa region.

The applicants sought a declaration that the respondents were vexatious litigants and an order requiring them to seek leave before instituting further legal proceedings.

The court reviewed the respondents' extensive litigation history, including repetitive claims, collateral attacks on previous orders, and persistent failure to pay costs.

The court found the respondents to be vexatious litigants under section 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and granted the applications, imposing a standard leave requirement and a "Chavali Order" to prevent serial applications for leave.

Intact Insurance Company moved for summary judgment to dismiss an action brought by J.P. Towing Service & Storage Ltd. concerning towing and storage fees.

J.P. Towing cross-moved for various declarations and consolidation.

The court dismissed Intact's motion, finding that while most of J.P. Towing's claims (vexatious litigant, prohibitive order, consolidation, and monetary/punitive damages) were not viable, its claim for a declaration that the daily storage rate of $70.00, as determined in a prior Small Claims Court decision (Sherwood), was res judicata against Intact, was valid.

The court allowed J.P. Towing's cross-motion and granted summary judgment on this specific declaration, holding that Intact was bound by the Sherwood decision regarding the daily storage rate when acting on behalf of its insureds.

This is a costs decision on appeal from a Superior Court judgment.

The appellant appealed the decision of Justice James F. Diamond dated August 22, 2016, and the associated costs order dated September 27, 2016.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the costs submissions of both parties and determined that the respondent was entitled to costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $80,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court found no basis for awarding costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his claim for declaratory relief related to an insurance policy and sought leave to appeal a substantial indemnity costs award of $1,250,000.

The trial judge found that the policy contained a common mistake in the paid-up values table and ordered rectification.

The appellant argued that rectification was unavailable as a remedy and that any rectification claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding that rectification was an appropriate remedy for the common mistake and that the claim was not statute-barred because the injury, loss, or damage only occurred when the appellant sought to resile from the parties' common understanding.

The court also upheld the substantial indemnity costs award, finding the appellant's conduct worthy of judicial sanction.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing his Small Claims Court appeal for delay.

The court applied the four-part test from Paulsson v. Cooper.

While the appellant demonstrated an intention to appeal and provided a mental health explanation for the significant delay, he failed to provide a trial transcript or demonstrate that the appeal had merit.

The court concluded that the justice of the case did not warrant setting aside the dismissal order, and the motion was dismissed with costs.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs.

The plaintiffs conceded entitlement but disputed the quantum and requested payment in instalments.

The court noted the plaintiffs' history of non-payment of prior costs awards and concerns about the merits of their case due to related proceedings.

The court ordered security for costs in the amount of $93,419.70, deducting anticipated trial and mediation costs, payable in three instalments.