Christopher George Peter Karpacz

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add two security companies as potential parties to the human rights application.

The applicant alleged he was assaulted by security guards employed by these companies while at the respondent's store.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to add them as respondents, noting that the applicant determines who to name as a respondent and there is no third-party claim process under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed that the companies could file a Request to Intervene if they wished to participate.

This case conference endorsement addresses interim steps leading up to a mini-trial.

The court ordered the plaintiff to review un-redacted files for communications predating the statement of claim that relate to the decision to commence the proceeding, and to advise the defendants of their existence and nature.

The mini-trial was scheduled for September 1, 2016, with witness examinations in chief to be tendered by affidavit evidence, followed by cross-examination at the mini-trial.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's subrogated action, arguing it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, having been commenced more than two years after a fire and explosion.

The plaintiff, through its insurer Intact, contended that the claim was not discovered until the Ontario Fire Marshal's report identified the cause as arson.

The court found Intact's evidence regarding its due diligence in investigating the claim to be significantly lacking, relying on hearsay.

Despite the evidentiary deficiencies, the court, applying the enhanced powers under Rule 20, ordered a mini-trial to determine the issue of Intact's reasonable diligence in discovering the claim, emphasizing the need for a fair and just adjudication and the unique circumstances of pending official investigations.

Following a trial in a commercial dispute arising from an agreement of purchase and sale for a property intended to be converted into a motion capture studio, the successful plaintiff sought costs of approximately $191,895 including fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff relied on Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that an offer to settle entitled it to substantial indemnity costs after the date of the offer.

The court found the offer to settle was not served within the timeframe required by Rule 49.10 and the offer itself was not provided to the court.

While the judgment exceeded the amount of the offer, the court declined to award elevated costs and instead assessed costs on a partial indemnity basis globally.

Considering the length of the thirteen‑day trial and the involvement of expert witnesses, the court awarded reduced total costs.

The plaintiff purchased a building from the defendant to use as a motion capture studio.

The agreement required the defendant to complete specific structural renovations.

The defendant commenced work without a building permit, resulting in an order to comply from the city, and ultimately failed to complete the work.

The plaintiff took over the project, hired professionals to obtain permits and finish the renovations, and sued for completion costs and lost profits due to the delay.

The court found the defendant in breach of contract and awarded the plaintiff damages for completion costs, recurring lost profits, and a lost extraordinary business opportunity, while allowing a small portion of the defendant's counterclaim for agreed extras.