Christine Muir

Roger Foley, the plaintiff, brought a motion under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to disqualify Neil Searles as counsel for the Centre for Independent Living in Toronto (CILT).

Foley alleged conflict of interest, divided loyalty, and that Searles would be a necessary witness due to a 1996 article he authored on physician-assisted suicide.

The court, on its own initiative, considered dismissing the motion as frivolous or vexatious.

The court found the motion frivolous, noting that CILT opposed the removal of its counsel, that accepting a binding Supreme Court decision (Carter) is not a basis for disqualification, and that Foley's attempt to call Searles as a witness was unlikely to be permitted at trial.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant moved to stay a defamation action, arguing it was based on evidence obtained in violation of the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01.

The evidence in question was a surreptitious recording voluntarily attached as an exhibit to an affidavit in a separate family litigation proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the deemed undertaking rule applies only to evidence obtained through compulsory discovery mechanisms, not to evidence voluntarily put forward in an affidavit.

The plaintiffs, who operate a specialized First Nations Specific Claims insurance business, brought a motion for an interlocutory and permanent injunction against former employees and independent contractors who started a competing brokerage.

The plaintiffs sought to prohibit the defendants from competing, soliciting clients, and using confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no non-competition or non-solicitation agreements existed, and the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the defendants misused proprietary information.

The court ordered the defendants to return and delete any of the plaintiffs' confidential information in their possession, as proposed by the defendants.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' challenge to Western University's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, the university sought partial indemnity costs of $97,721.11.

The applicants argued no costs should be awarded as the case was public interest litigation.

The court rejected this argument, finding the case lacked the exceptional nature required to deviate from the usual costs rules, and noted the applicants were backed by a litigation fund.

The court awarded the university costs fixed at $75,000.

The applicant students sought declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against the respondent university's COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, arguing that the collection of proof of vaccination violated s. 38(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The court found that the university's broad statutory powers authorized the Policy as a 'lawfully authorized activity' and that the collection of proof of vaccination was 'necessary' to properly administer and enforce the mandate.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant was successful on a motion to strike the plaintiff's amended statement of claim in its entirety, with leave granted to the plaintiff to plead a claim for breach of contract.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $9,929.48.

The plaintiff, despite being unsuccessful, sought costs of $12,966.56, arguing it achieved substantial success by being granted leave to amend.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument, finding no special circumstances to justify awarding costs against the successful party.

The court awarded the defendant its requested costs of $9,929.49, payable in any event of the cause.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety.

The plaintiff, a courier service, sued the defendant medical laboratory for various claims including negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract following the termination of their contract.

The court found the pleading to be a gross violation of the rules of pleading, as it contained evidence, was vague, and included untenable claims.

The court struck the Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety but granted the plaintiff leave to deliver a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim confined solely to a cause of action for breach of contract.

Nexen Energy commenced identical actions in Alberta and Ontario against ITP SA for damages arising from a pipeline rupture.

While the Purchase Order specified Ontario as the exclusive dispute resolution forum, ITP SA defended the Alberta action and sought to use the Ontario forum selection clause to have a discrete issue of law (interpretation of liability limits) adjudicated in Ontario via a Rule 21 motion before the Ontario action was stayed.

Nexen Energy moved to stay its own Ontario action.

The Master found "special circumstances" overriding the forum selection clause, preventing ITP SA from "slicing and dicing" the case.

The Master granted Nexen Energy's motion, permanently staying the Ontario action, and directed ITP SA's motion to Alberta, citing judicial economy, efficiency, and consistency, given the active case management in Alberta and the multi-party nature of the dispute.

The respondent was found in civil contempt for continuing to operate a parking lot in contravention of a zoning by-law and a court injunction.

The contempt was subsequently purged when the parking lot was shut down.

The court accepted a joint submission from the parties and ordered the respondent to pay a $25,000 fine, which removed any profit gained from the contemptuous operation of the lot.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim.

The court considered whether the successful defendants, Sparkasse Siegen and Thomas Magnete GmbH, should receive costs on a higher scale due to settlement offers, and whether costs should be awarded against a non-party, Mr. Mellema.

The court declined to award higher scale costs, finding the plaintiffs' claim was not frivolous and their refusal to accept settlement offers was not unreasonable.

It also declined to award costs against Mr. Mellema personally, noting the defendants' awareness of his involvement and their prior opportunities to seek increased security for costs or provide notice.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to both defendants.

The plaintiffs, suppliers of automated assembly lines, sued the defendants for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract following the cancellation of a major auto sector project.

The plaintiffs alleged they relied on a comfort letter from the defendants regarding project financing and that a subsequent oral agreement was made for the defendants to assume the debt.

The court dismissed the claims, finding the comfort letter was not misleading and reliance on it was unreasonable given the plaintiffs' own deceptive request.

The court also found no evidence of the alleged oral agreement and held that any such claim would be barred by the Limitations Act and the Statute of Frauds.

Wrigley Canada Inc. (moving party) sought an interim injunction and an inspection order under Rule 32 to conduct its own environmental testing on the adjacent property owned by Metrus Properties (responding party).

Metrus had sued Wrigley alleging contamination from Wrigley's property and had refused Wrigley access for testing, subsequently beginning excavation work.

The court granted the injunction and inspection order, finding that Wrigley had demonstrated a serious issue to be tried, would suffer irreparable harm if denied access to conduct independent testing before excavation altered the site, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the order, especially given Metrus's refusal of access and non-disclosure of excavation plans.

Following a successful motion in which the action against one defendant was dismissed for lack of a real and substantial connection with Ontario, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $25,000, arguing the motion involved significant complexity, a substantial damages claim, and an extensive evidentiary record.

The plaintiffs contended the cross-examination conducted was proper and that a lower costs award was reasonable.

Applying the discretionary principles governing costs under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed a fair and reasonable amount rather than awarding actual costs incurred.

Partial indemnity costs of $21,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes were awarded to the successful defendant.

The defendant, a resident and chief architect of the Ministry of Works and Engineering of Bermuda, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' conspiracy action against him on the grounds of state immunity and lack of jurisdiction simpliciter.

The plaintiffs, former Bermudian government officials, alleged the defendant conspired with an Ontario architect to plant altered cheques in government files to falsely implicate them in a kickback scheme.

The court found the defendant was not immune from suit due to the commercial activity exception under the State Immunity Act.

However, the court dismissed the action against the moving defendant, concluding that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter as the plaintiffs failed to establish a real and substantial connection to the province.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a defamation action arising from an email sent to the provincial Minister of Health and the president of a professional regulatory body concerning a physician’s clinic offering diagnostic imaging related to a controversial multiple sclerosis theory.

The plaintiff alleged that the email implied unethical conduct, fraud, and exploitation of vulnerable patients.

The defendant argued the communication was protected by absolute or qualified privilege and that the action could be dismissed without trial.

Applying the “full appreciation” test articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Service Inc. v. Flesch, the court held that the issues of privilege, truth, and malice required credibility assessments and a full evidentiary record.

Given the low threshold for defamatory meaning and the plaintiff’s right to a jury trial, the court concluded the matter should proceed to trial.

The plaintiffs, senior members of the government of Bermuda, brought a motion to strike certain paragraphs of the defendant's Statement of Defence in a defamation action.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendant architect falsified cheques to make it appear they received kickbacks from a construction project.

The impugned paragraphs detailed the history of the construction project, including the selection of the contractor and ongoing payment disputes.

The court dismissed the motion for the most part, finding the paragraphs were relevant and had potential probative value in defending against the allegations of fraud, though two specific portions were struck on consent.