Christian David Breukelman

Following dismissal of two civil actions, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs and the self-represented plaintiff opposed the amounts and requested that costs be reserved to the Court of Appeal.

The court rejected reserving costs as contrary to established practice, accepted that costs must remain fair, reasonable, and proportionate, and declined reductions based on self-representation alone.

The court allowed a limited objection for case-management-related costs and declined costs thrown away on a prior adjournment, while otherwise finding the defendants’ summary judgment litigation approach reasonable.

Partial indemnity costs were fixed at $45,000 plus HST for the first action and $2,500 plus HST for the second action, payable within 30 days.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal from the denial of certification of a class action alleging systemic negligence in the use of seclusion and restraint at a forensic psychiatric hospital.

The court found that the motion judge did not err in concluding that the claims lacked commonality, as the alleged wrongdoing could only be determined on an individual basis.

The court also upheld the dismissal of claims against individual hospital administrators and affirmed the costs award, finding no reversible error in the motion judge’s analysis.

The plaintiff, Adam (Family of) Davidson, sued Cummer Avenue United Church, Sandra Seepaul, and Hub International Insurance for damages after being assaulted by a third party, Joe, at a drop-in center operated by the church.

The court found that the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff under the Occupiers' Liability Act and in negligence, and that they breached the standard of care by failing to implement adequate safety measures and anti-harassment policies.

The court awarded the plaintiff $7,500 in damages, including aggravated damages, and found no contributory negligence on the plaintiff's part.

The Empowerment Council sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal from the refusal to certify a proposed class action concerning psychiatric inpatients at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervener’s submissions were largely duplicative of the appellants’ and would not usefully contribute to the resolution of the appeal without prejudicing the parties.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the defendants to transfer an action from Milton to Toronto, which the plaintiffs had opposed.

The court applied principles from Schreiber v. Mulroney and Boucher v. Public Accountants Counsel for the Province of Ontario, considering Rule 57 factors and proportionality.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants partial indemnity costs of $2,980.00.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion brought by the defendants to transfer an action from Milton to Toronto.

The court, applying Rule 57 factors and principles from *Schreiber v. Mulroney* and *Boucher v. Public Accountants Counsel for the Province of Ontario*, ordered the plaintiffs to pay partial indemnity costs to the defendants.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from Milton (Central West Region) to the Toronto Region, arguing that Toronto was the more appropriate venue.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court granted the transfer, finding no rational connection to Milton and that Toronto was a substantially better venue, based on a holistic application of Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) factors, including the location of the project, the events giving rise to the claim, and the parties' residences.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from Milton (Central West Region) to the Toronto Region, pursuant to Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court granted the transfer, finding no rational connection to Milton and determining that Toronto was a substantially better venue, given that the project, contractual agreement, and all events giving rise to the claim were located in Toronto, as were the parties and their counsel.

This endorsement addresses costs following an appeal decision.

The appellant, Nathalie Xian Yi Yan, was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to two sets of respondents and substantial indemnity costs to a third respondent, Edward Lawrence Marrocco.

The substantial indemnity costs were awarded due to the appellant's frivolous, vexatious, and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct, dishonesty, illegality, and conspiracy against Mr. Marrocco.

The appellant, a traditional Chinese medicine practitioner, launched 19 civil claims against individuals involved in disciplinary proceedings against her, including investigators, College counsel, and independent legal counsel to the Discipline Committee.

These claims alleged defamation, professional negligence, evidence tampering, and breach of due process.

The motion judge struck these claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being barred by statutory immunity under the Regulated Health Professions Act, and constituting an impermissible collateral attack on the tribunal's decision.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, affirming the application of statutory immunity, absolute privilege for statements in judicial/tribunal proceedings, and the rule against collateral attacks, and denied leave to amend the claims or appeal the costs awards.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to deliver a Fresh Amended Amended Statement of Claim, following two previous instances where their pleadings were struck.

The defendants opposed, arguing that new Family Law Act (FLA) claims (derivative of Greg Sigurdson's negligence claim) and a loss of income claim (belonging to a corporation, not Greg) were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

They also argued a specific paragraph was vexatious.

The court granted leave in part, striking the vexatious paragraph and requiring clarification for the loss of income claim to be Greg's personal claim.

The court found the loss of income claim was connected to the original factual matrix, and the FLA claims were arguably so, allowing them to proceed without prejudice to the defendants' right to raise a limitations defence at trial or summary motion.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion brought by the defendants to strike the plaintiffs' pleading without leave to amend and/or for partial summary judgment dismissing Family Law Act claims.

The court had previously granted the defendants' motion, striking the pleading but with leave to amend, and dismissing the FLA claims.

The defendants sought costs, arguing they were the successful party.

The plaintiffs contended success was divided.

The court found the defendants to be the successful parties overall, given their success on the primary issues.

The plaintiffs' conduct, including multiple deficient pleadings and raising irrelevant family law issues, necessitated the motion and increased costs.

The court awarded costs to the defendants.

The defendant, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, brought a motion seeking answers to undertakings and refusals from the plaintiff, Shoppers Drug Mart Inc., following an examination for discovery in an insurance claim dispute.

The core dispute revolved around the relevance and proportionality of requests for drug identification numbers (DINs) and storage condition information for a large shipment of pharmaceuticals allegedly damaged in a truck accident.

The court granted most of the defendant's requests, compelling answers to undertaking no. 5 and refusal nos. 1 to 5, finding them relevant to the issue of cargo damage and not disproportionate.

However, the court denied the request for refusal no. 6, deeming it too broad and not relevant to the contractual claim against Aviva.

The defendant was awarded costs.

The defendants, Altus Group Limited and Jason White, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing the plaintiff, Melvyn D. Eisen (the Trustee), lacked standing to represent 13 investors in a syndicated mortgage transaction.

The Trustee brought a cross-motion seeking a declaration of standing or, alternatively, to add or substitute the Investor Beneficiaries as plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the defendants' summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the Trustee's standing and the timing of detrimental reliance.

The court also denied the Trustee leave to bring his cross-motion, concluding that adding or substituting parties at this late stage, after the action was set down for trial, was not warranted given the deliberate tactical choice made by the Trustee and the potential for further delays and prejudice to the defendants.

The court heard multiple motions to strike claims against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (HMQ), various Children's Aid Societies (CAS), and an expert witness (Julia Klein).

These claims arose from the use of unreliable hair follicle drug testing by the Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory in child welfare investigations and proceedings, leading to children's apprehension and, in some cases, Crown wardship.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence, breach of Charter rights, bad faith, and other torts against the defendants.

The court granted all motions to strike, finding that HMQ and the CAS did not owe a private law duty of care to the parents or children in their supervisory or investigative roles, as their paramount duty was to the child's best interests.

Many claims were also deemed impermissible collateral attacks on existing court orders.

The claim against the expert witness, Julia Klein, was struck due to witness immunity and a lack of causal connection between her testimony and the alleged damages.