Chapnik

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action against the defendant lawyers, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs argued that costs should not be awarded due to the lead plaintiff's hardship as a paraplegic, the fact that the defendants were insured by LawPro, and the defendants' failure to make settlement offers.

The court rejected these arguments, holding that hardship does not displace the rule that costs follow the event, and that the presence of insurance is irrelevant to costs awards.

The court fixed the defendants' costs at $250,000 for the main action and $7,500 for the abandoned Family Law Act claims.

The plaintiff was severely injured in a motorcycle accident in Jamaica.

She retained the defendant lawyer to investigate potential insurance claims.

The lawyer advised that her family's Ontario automobile insurance policy would not provide accident benefits due to a territorial restriction limiting coverage to North America, and thus did not file an application for benefits before the two-year limitation period expired.

The plaintiff sued the lawyer for professional negligence, arguing he should have filed the application to preserve her rights, especially given subsequent changes in case law.

The court dismissed the action, finding the lawyer met the standard of care of a reasonably competent expert in insurance law at the time, and that an application for benefits would likely have been denied anyway.

The applicant mother brought a motion for increased ongoing child support, retroactive child support, and section 7 expenses.

She argued the respondent father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose pension and RRSP withdrawals, which she claimed should be included in his income for support purposes.

The court dismissed the claims, finding no blameworthy conduct and ruling that the withdrawals constituted non-recurring income that should be excluded from the child support calculation.

Ongoing child support was varied based solely on the father's employment income, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff corporation claimed a 5% commission on sales made by the defendant balloon wholesaler to a major retail chain, alleging an oral agreement was reached after the plaintiff introduced the parties and helped strategize the sales program.

The defendant denied the agreement, arguing the plaintiff had minimal involvement and offering a nominal fee.

The court found that an oral agreement for a 5% commission on gross sales did exist, based on the parties' correspondence, past relationship, and the plaintiff's significant role in securing the account.

The court awarded the plaintiff $350,000 in damages, representing commissions for a reasonable five-year period.

The Attorney General of Canada brought an action for unjust enrichment to recover $194,000 USD mistakenly paid to the defendants.

The funds were intended for another claimant under a United Nations compensation program but were erroneously sent to the defendant wife.

The defendants cashed the cheque and spent the funds, later arguing estoppel and change of position.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the defendants knew or ought to have known the funds were misdirected.

The court rejected the defendants' defences, finding no juristic reason for the enrichment, and ordered the defendants to repay the outstanding balance of the funds plus interest and costs.

The applicant father sought to confirm a provisional variation order from British Columbia that drastically reduced his child and spousal support obligations and arrears.

The respondent mother and the City of Toronto opposed the confirmation, providing evidence that the applicant had misrepresented his income, employment capabilities, and notice of the original Ontario proceedings to the British Columbia court.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to confirm the provisional order, finding the applicant had not been honest, and ordered the original support order to continue in effect with costs awarded to the respondent and the City.

The plaintiff First Nation, located in Quebec, commenced an action in Ontario against the federal Crown and two third-party managers for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation regarding the management of its funding.

The defendants moved to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction.

The court applied the real and substantial connection test and section 21(1) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, finding that the substance of the claims arose in Quebec where the alleged failures and losses were experienced.

The motion was granted and the action was stayed.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for unidentified motorist coverage.

The plaintiff alleged she was involved in a hit-and-run accident but failed to report it to the police or the insurer within the statutory timeframes, relying on alleged advice from an insurance broker's employee.

The court found the plaintiff failed to comply with the strict reporting requirements under the Insurance Act and the Uninsured Automobile Coverage schedule.

Applying the test for relief from forfeiture, the court held the plaintiff's conduct was unreasonable and the insurer suffered actual and potential prejudice by losing the opportunity to investigate.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The defendant, a California corporation that dissolved after allegedly supplying a defective generator but before the plaintiff commenced its action, brought a motion to dismiss the action against it for lack of legal capacity to be sued in Ontario.

The court applied conflict of laws principles, determining that while capacity to be sued is procedural, the legal status of a foreign entity is a substantive issue governed by the law of its place of incorporation.

Because the California Corporations Code permits dissolved corporations to continue to exist for the purpose of defending actions, the court found the defendant had the legal capacity to be sued in Ontario and dismissed the motion.

The plaintiff brought an action for non-payment of rent against the corporate defendant and its guarantor.

The defendants filed a defence and counterclaim before the corporate defendant was voluntarily dissolved.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing the dissolved corporation lacked capacity to litigate.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that under section 242(1) of the Business Corporations Act, a dissolved corporation retains the right to defend an action and continue a counterclaim commenced prior to dissolution.

The court also authorized a former director to give instructions on behalf of the dissolved corporation.

The plaintiff investment dealer brought an action against the defendant investment advisor for repayment of a transition loan.

The defendant's regulatory registration was suspended shortly after he joined the plaintiff, rendering him unable to fulfill his duties.

The plaintiff terminated the agency agreement and demanded repayment of the loan pursuant to the agreement's terms.

The defendant argued the loan was governed by a prior term sheet, claimed wrongful termination, and counterclaimed for bad faith.

The court found the written agency agreement governed, the plaintiff had cause to terminate due to the defendant's lack of registration, and the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to assist the defendant.

The court granted judgment for the plaintiff for the outstanding loan amount plus interest and dismissed the counterclaim.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on its action for a debt owed under a share purchase agreement and to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant alleged unwritten collateral agreements and illegal conduct by the plaintiff but provided no evidence to support these claims.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the defendant's allegations were bald and self-serving.

The court also found the defendant's counterclaim was statute-barred.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $289,000, and the counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff was defrauded by its employee, who used some of the stolen funds to pay criminal restitution to his former employer, whom he had previously defrauded.

The plaintiff sued the former employer and its principal for knowing receipt and unjust enrichment, seeking to trace and recover the funds.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff could not reliably trace the funds, the defendants lacked constructive knowledge of the second fraud when they received the payments, and there was a valid juristic reason for the defendants' enrichment.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident who was transferred to work in New York for a subsidiary of an Ontario corporation, brought an action in Ontario for wrongful dismissal and human rights violations after her employment was terminated.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction or on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The court found that it had jurisdiction simpliciter because the Ontario parent corporation exercised effective control over the plaintiff's employment and the employment contract was connected to Ontario.

However, the court declined to exercise its jurisdiction, finding that New York was the clearly more appropriate forum because the key witnesses, evidence, and factual matters at the core of the dispute were located there.

The action was permanently stayed.