Chalmers

The applicant requested an adjournment of the application to bring a motion for production of further documentation after discovering the respondents made payments to third parties following a previously ordered injunction.

The court scheduled the motion for production of documents and set a timetable for the exchange of materials and cross-examinations.

The court also noted that if third parties consent, an order may be submitted to have the funds paid into court.

The self-represented plaintiff's action was previously dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 with leave to amend.

After the plaintiff filed a Fresh Amended Statement of Claim, the defendants requested another Rule 2.1.01 review.

The court issued a notice that it was considering dismissing the action and required written submissions.

The plaintiff requested a medical accommodation to provide oral submissions instead, citing autism and difficulty writing.

Although the medical evidence was deficient, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 2.1.01(3) to allow the accommodation, finding no prejudice to the defendants.

The plaintiff was permitted to provide a 15-minute oral response.

The plaintiff intends to bring a motion to order the sale of the subject property.

The defendants do not necessarily object to the sale, but there is no agreement on the terms.

The court established a timetable for the motion materials and scheduled a case conference to explore resolving the contested issues before the motion hearing.

The self-represented plaintiff failed to attend a scheduled videoconference motion.

The court adjourned the motions and ordered the plaintiff to pay $500 in costs for the missed appearance.

The court also noted that under Rule 15.01, the minor plaintiff must be represented by a lawyer, and directed the plaintiff to either retain counsel or properly move to discontinue the minor's claim.

Snapclarity Inc. brought an urgent motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain its former CEO and her new company from using an online mental health intake assessment questionnaire and competing against it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Snapclarity failed to establish a strong prima facie case for breach of the non-compete clause or copyright infringement, as the questionnaire was likely owned by the former CEO's consulting firm.

Furthermore, Snapclarity failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as its platform had already been sold and integrated into another company's product, and the balance of convenience favoured the responding parties.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board upholding her attending physician's finding that she was incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic and mood stabilizing medication.

The appellant argued that a breakdown in the therapeutic relationship, rather than mental illness, caused her failure to appreciate the consequences of treatment.

The Superior Court of Justice found no palpable and overriding error in the Board's conclusion regarding anti-psychotic medication, as there was evidence she suffered from bipolar disorder and could not apply treatment information to herself.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding mood stabilizing medication, finding no evidentiary basis for the Board's conclusion on that specific class of medication.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application under s. 109 of the Condominium Act to amend its declaration regarding the maintenance and replacement of exterior windows.

The applicant argued that the declaration was inconsistent because it made unit owners responsible for maintaining windows, while also making the corporation responsible for common elements, which included the exterior windows.

The respondent unit owners opposed the amendment, arguing there was no inconsistency.

The court found an inconsistency existed and that it was unworkable to have individual unit owners replace their own exterior windows.

The court granted the application to amend the declaration and adjourned the respondents' cross-application regarding the procedure for replacing the windows.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for court approval of a $440,000 settlement arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident involving a motorcycle.

The deceased's minor child and other family members sought damages under the Family Law Act.

The court found the 30% contingency fee agreement for the minor plaintiff to be fair and reasonable.

However, the court adjourned the motion for settlement approval because the plaintiffs failed to provide the expert report on loss of dependency and a complete list of disbursements.

At a case conference, the plaintiffs requested copies of all media documents listed in Schedule A of the defendants' Affidavit of Documents.

The defendants argued that the cost of reviewing, redacting, and copying the files would be prohibitive and offered inspection instead.

The court held that the defendants complied with Rule 30.04 by offering inspection and ordered that the plaintiffs' counsel may inspect the documents at the Crown's offices.

The court also renewed an order prohibiting the recording and posting of discovery proceedings on social media.

The applicants brought an application for an interim order appointing them joint guardians of property for $700,000 of a minor's personal injury settlement funds.

The funds were to be used to purchase and renovate a wheelchair-accessible home for the minor.

The Children's Lawyer approved the purchase and recommended specific renovations for the minor's safety.

The court found the purchase and renovations to be in the minor's best interests, granted the interim order, and directed that the property be registered in the minor's name.

At a case conference, the court scheduled a timetable for three upcoming motions: the defendants' motion to enforce a settlement, the plaintiff's counsel's motion to be removed as solicitor of record, and a motion for an order to continue given the plaintiff is an undischarged bankrupt.

The court directed that the order to continue be heard first, followed by the removal motion, and finally the motion to enforce the settlement.

The plaintiff brought a motion to vary an order dated December 22, 2020, which transferred a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court to be tried together with the current action.

The plaintiff sought to vary the order to specifically state that the two actions are to be consolidated, as the original endorsement allowed for consolidation but the draft order did not.

The defendants consented to the relief.

The court granted the motion, finding it necessary to vary the order to conform with the original endorsement.

The City of Toronto requested a case conference to schedule a hearing for a duty to defend application against its maintenance contractor and the contractor's insurer, arising from a slip and fall action.

The plaintiff in the main action argued the issue should be determined by a motion in the existing action and expressed concern about trial delay.

The court directed the matter to proceed by way of motion, found there was sufficient time without jeopardizing trial dates, and set a timetable for the motion.

The plaintiff, a physiotherapist, suffered an electric shock while adjusting a bed at the defendant's clinic.

The defendant admitted liability.

The court assessed damages for the plaintiff's injuries, which included concussion-like symptoms, headaches, migraines, and soft-tissue pain.

The court found that while the plaintiff suffered a serious injury, her condition had improved significantly, allowing her to work full-time and participate in physical activities.

The court awarded $100,000 in general damages, $375,000 for past loss of income, $159,443.14 for future care costs, and additional amounts for special damages, subrogated claims, and Family Law Act claims for her parents, totaling $742,822.73.

Claims for future loss of income were dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to vary a previous order dated December 22, 2020, which transferred a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court to be tried together with the current action.

The plaintiff sought to vary the order to specifically state that the two actions are to be consolidated, conforming with the original endorsement.

The court granted the motion and varied the order to provide for consolidation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, who operate a global online lottery business and were noted in default.

The court noted that it was unclear whether the defendants had been served with the motion for default judgment.

Applying Rule 19.02(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court exercised its discretion to require the plaintiffs to serve the motion record on the defendants by registered mail, giving them 14 days to respond before the motion proceeds in writing.

The parties sought costs following a motion where the plaintiff successfully amended her statement of claim but was unsuccessful in striking the jury, and the defendants successfully obtained an order for further medical assessments.

The court found the defendants were seeking an indulgence for the medical assessments and were not entitled to costs for that portion.

The defendants were awarded $750 in costs for successfully opposing the motion to strike the jury.

Following the granting of the plaintiff's motion for an injunction, the parties reached an agreement on costs.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff fixed at $40,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, on consent.

The self-represented plaintiff in a medical malpractice action brought a motion seeking leave to amend his Statement of Claim for an eighth time, leave to examine non-parties, and an order compelling the production of documents.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendments had no chance of success, were presumptively prejudicial due to delay, and constituted an abuse of process.

The court also denied leave to examine non-parties and compel document production, as the plaintiff had not yet conducted an examination for discovery of the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for unpaid invoices.

The corporate defendants consented to judgment, leaving the issue of the personal liability of the sole director, who signed cheques in a trade name that were returned for non-sufficient funds.

The court found the director personally liable under the Bills of Exchange Act because the cheques did not display the name of the legal corporate entity, and signing in a representative capacity using only a trade name does not exempt the signer from personal liability.

Summary judgment was granted against the director for $140,621.52.