Charles Dobson

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend his statement of claim against his insurer regarding property damage.

The defendant insurer opposed, arguing the amendments raised a new cause of action and would cause prejudice because it had already settled a subrogated claim related to the damage.

The court granted the motion, finding the amendments did not plead a new cause of action and any prejudice was due to the defendant's own actions in settling the subrogated claim without the plaintiff's input.

The order was made without prejudice to the defendant raising a limitations argument at trial.

The appellant commenced an action in small claims court for breach of contract and subsequently filed a duplicative claim in superior court with additional claims.

The trial judge struck out the entire superior court action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1, finding that the appellant had not followed proper procedure to transfer the small claims action and was attempting to litigate the same matters in two courts simultaneously.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the trial judge's decision.

The defendant insurers brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate and individual plaintiffs following a dispute over insurance coverage for a flooded restaurant.

The court dismissed the motion against the individual plaintiff, finding no evidence of his assets and that his claim was not vexatious.

The court also declined to order security for costs against the corporate plaintiff, despite its lack of assets, because the plaintiff alleged its impecuniosity was caused by the defendants' failure to timely pay business interruption insurance proceeds.

Following certification of a national class proceeding and dismissal of defendants’ summary judgment motions, the court determined costs arising from the certification and related motions.

The court applied Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles governing costs in class proceedings, including fairness, reasonable expectations of the parties, and the access to justice objectives of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The litigation involved extensive evidence, numerous defendants, and complex factual and legal issues affecting approximately 10,000 class members with alleged losses approaching $150 million.

The court rejected requests for substantial indemnity costs and declined to refer costs to formal assessment, instead fixing costs directly.

Significant partial indemnity costs and disbursements were awarded to the plaintiff, apportioned among the defendant groups.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the promoters, lawyers, and other entities involved in a charitable donation tax shelter scheme called the Donations for Canada Gift Program.

The Canada Revenue Agency had disallowed the charitable tax credits claimed by the participants, finding they lacked donative intent.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action in negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, conspiracy, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions for summary judgment, concluding that a trial was required to fully appreciate the evidence and resolve the complex factual issues, including whether the contracts were vitiated by fraud.

The appellant, a Bermuda-based corporate trustee, appealed a decision finding that Ontario courts had jurisdiction over it.

The Court of Appeal applied the Van Breda test and upheld the motion judge's finding that there was a real and substantial connection between the appellant and Ontario.

The evidence indicated the appellant transferred funds to Ontario over four years with knowledge they would be used in a gifting program, satisfying the presumption of a tort committed in Ontario under Rule 17.02(g).

The appeal was dismissed.