Chalmers

In a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff amended their statement of claim against individual directors under s. 248 of the OBCA following a Court of Appeal decision.

The defendants brought a second motion to strike the amended claim, arguing it remained deficient.

At a case conference, the court determined it could not resolve the issue on a limited record and scheduled the defendants' motion to strike for a later date, while encouraging the parties to proceed with discovery and mediation.

A case conference was held to schedule the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The self-represented plaintiff failed to attend the case conference and had blocked emails from the court.

The case management judge established a timetable for the summary judgment motion and ordered that the defendants serve their materials on the plaintiff by personal service.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action requested a case conference to schedule examinations for discovery and mediation, citing unresponsiveness from the defendant's counsel.

The court found the request premature and inappropriate, as the plaintiff had not yet delivered a sworn Affidavit of Documents or a Notice of Examination for Discovery.

The court declined to schedule the discoveries, directed the parties to utilize the Rules of Civil Procedure, and awarded $250 in costs to the defendant for the unnecessary case conference.

The applicant requested a case conference to schedule an application for the partition and sale of a jointly owned house and to establish a timetable.

The self-represented respondent did not attend, reportedly due to illness.

The court scheduled the application for March 2022 and set a timetable for the delivery of materials and cross-examinations.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action requested a case conference to schedule dates for discovery and mediation after the defendant delayed proceedings due to internal HR turnover.

The court established a litigation timetable, ordering examinations for discovery to be completed by January 14, 2022, and mediation by February 4, 2022.

The plaintiffs and certain defendants consented to vary a previously granted Mareva injunction.

The consent order unfreezes three bank accounts belonging to the consenting defendants and directs the transfer of funds from one account to the plaintiffs' solicitor's trust account, to be held pending further order or written consent.

The court granted the order as requested.

The plaintiff was rendered a quadriplegic after diving into a shallow above-ground pool at his aunt's farm.

He brought an action against the defendant, a friend of his cousin, who had assisted in moving a wooden platform next to the pool a few weeks prior to the accident.

The court found that the defendant was not involved in the design or construction of the platform, and merely helped move it.

The court held that the plaintiff's injury was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions, and there was insufficient proximity to establish a duty of care.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for approval of a settlement of a disability benefits claim for a person under disability.

The action settled for an all-inclusive amount of $113,553.00.

The court previously approved the settlement but reserved on the issue of plaintiff counsel's fees, directing a breakdown of the all-inclusive amount.

After reviewing the breakdown and the contingency fee agreement, the court found the 33.33% fee on the damages portion to be fair and reasonable, approving total fees and disbursements of $39,629.17.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the jury awarded $40,000 in non-pecuniary damages, the defendant brought a threshold motion to dismiss the claim.

The court analyzed whether the plaintiff's soft tissue injuries, TMJ dysfunction, and psychological issues were caused by the accident and constituted a permanent serious impairment.

The court found that only the whiplash injury was caused by the accident, while the TMJ and psychological issues were pre-existing or unrelated.

The court concluded that the whiplash injury, although permanent, was not a serious impairment as it did not substantially interfere with the plaintiff's usual activities.

The threshold motion was granted and the claim for non-pecuniary damages was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment.

The defendant argued the matter was not ready to proceed due to outstanding undertakings and refusals from cross-examination.

The plaintiff agreed to answer all undertakings and refusals within 24 hours and admitted negligence for the purpose of the motion.

The court ordered the summary judgment motion to proceed as scheduled and modified the timetable for the delivery of factums.

The applicant sought to schedule a motion to add Regal Automotive Group, Inc. as a party to an application enforcing letters of request from a US court.

The court established a timetable for the delivery of materials, cross-examinations, and factums leading up to the motion hearing on November 29, 2021.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting in default.

The plaintiffs had commenced an action for breach of trust and unjust enrichment, and noted the defendants in default after they failed to deliver a Statement of Defence.

The defendants' daughter, acting as attorney for property for her father who suffered from vascular dementia, explained the delay was due to inadvertence and difficulty locating documents.

The court found the defendants demonstrated an intent to defend, the delay was not significant, and there was no prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The motion was granted, the noting in default was set aside, and the daughter was appointed litigation guardian for her father.

The applicant brought a motion for production of documents.

During a case conference, the respondents' counsel advised of a scheduling conflict and requested time to ascertain the position of third parties.

The court found the third parties' involvement unnecessary for the motion, adjourned the motion by one day to accommodate counsel's schedule, and set a timetable for the respondents' factum.

Following a default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action where the plaintiff was awarded damages for salary in lieu of notice, the court addressed the remaining claims for vacation pay and costs.

The plaintiff abandoned the claim for loss of benefits.

The court awarded $464.56 for vacation pay over the statutory notice period and fixed costs at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' action.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the defendants' motions until after their motion for leave to amend the statement of claim could be heard.

On consent, the court adjourned the defendants' motions to a later date.

The applicant sought an urgent case conference after the respondent purported to evict the applicant and changed the locks, contrary to a prior court order barring eviction.

The respondent claimed he had not received the prior order.

During the conference, the respondent confirmed receipt of the order and agreed not to take further steps to evict the applicant until a motion to vary the order is heard.

The court directed the respondent to schedule a motion to vary the order, to be heard alongside the applicant's motion for contempt, and permitted the applicant to change the locks to reopen for business.

The plaintiff, a person under disability, brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for approval of a settlement of his long-term disability claim against the defendant for an all-inclusive amount of $113,553.

The court found the settlement amount to be fair and reasonable.

However, the court adjourned the approval of the plaintiff's counsel's contingency fee, directing counsel to provide a breakdown of the all-inclusive settlement to ensure the fee was calculated only on the damages portion, as required by the retainer agreement.

The applicant insurer sought a declaration that the respondent insurer was required to contribute equally to the defence and indemnification of a pharmacist in an underlying negligence action.

Both insurers had issued policies covering the pharmacist, and both policies contained 'other insurance' clauses stating their coverage was excess to any other valid insurance.

The court found that both policies provided primary coverage for the same risk at the same layer.

Applying the principles of equitable contribution, the court concluded that the competing 'other insurance' clauses were irreconcilable.

Consequently, the respondent was ordered to share equally in the costs of defending and indemnifying the insured.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application for a compliance order against the respondent unit owners due to excessive hoarding and clutter in their unit.

The clutter created a significant fire and safety hazard, breaching the Condominium Act and the corporation's declarations.

The respondents failed to remedy the situation despite multiple opportunities and refused entry to the applicant.

The court granted the compliance order, permitting the applicant to enter the unit to remove the clutter at the respondents' expense, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The plaintiff requested a case conference to approve a discovery plan and establish a litigation timetable in a fraudulent conveyance action.

The self-represented defendants had failed to respond to the plaintiff's proposed discovery plan and sought to schedule motions to dismiss the action for delay and to strike the claim under Rule 21.

The court approved the plaintiff's discovery plan with modifications, noting the defendants must list privileged documents in Schedule B of their Affidavit of Documents.

The court declined to schedule the defendants' motions, finding the delay motion unfounded as the defendants themselves failed to respond to the discovery plan, and the Rule 21 motion unlikely to succeed and an inefficient use of judicial resources.