Craig O’Brien

The plaintiffs sought costs after successfully opposing the defendants' motion for leave to register certificates of pending litigation.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the principle of indemnity and the unsuccessful party's reasonable expectations.

Despite the plaintiffs' higher actual costs, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis, balancing the parties' expectations and the motion's importance to the plaintiffs, though it was not complex.

Costs were fixed at $7,500.00, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs within 30 days.

The applicants, Ahmed Abou-Gabal and Velika Realty Inc., brought a motion seeking certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against properties owned by Jovalyn and Derian Tuitt.

The applicants' counterclaim referenced alleged mortgages and defaults but did not explicitly claim an interest in land or seek remedies like foreclosure or sale.

The court found that the counterclaim, as pleaded, did not establish an interest in land in question, which is a prerequisite for issuing a CPL.

Furthermore, the court noted that even if an interest in land had been established, the properties were not unique, and damages would likely be an adequate remedy, which would also weigh against granting a CPL.

The motion for CPLs was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sued the school board, a vice-principal, and a former student for events that occurred in September 2009, alleging false imprisonment, malicious intent, and negligence after the plaintiff student was arrested for uttering threats.

The court found the defendants' evidence credible, rejected the plaintiffs' allegations of a grudge or malicious intent by the vice-principal, and concluded the confinement of the student during the investigation was justified.

The action was dismissed.

The appellants (Mastron entities) appealed a motion judge's order that refused to dismiss third and fourth party claims and granted leave nunc pro tunc to Genivar to issue its fourth party claim.

The motion judge held that an order by Hackland J. dated December 10, 2013 was intended to continue the proceedings under the ordinary track rather than under the Construction Lien Act.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred in granting leave nunc pro tunc because the two-year limitation period for commencement of the fourth party claim had expired.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly interpreted Hackland J.'s order as continuing the action on the ordinary track, since the third party claim included claims for breach of contract and negligence in addition to contribution and indemnity, which could only proceed under the ordinary track.

The plaintiff tenant brought a motion seeking various remedies including contempt findings, striking the statement of defence, sequestration, and other relief arising from alleged repeated breaches of court orders by the defendant landlord and its principal.

The court reviewed a lengthy procedural history involving numerous orders related to lease obligations, discovery compliance, and remediation work at the leased premises.

The defendants repeatedly failed to comply with several court orders, including orders requiring document production, attendance at examinations and cross‑examinations, and completion of repair obligations.

The court held that the defendants’ persistent non‑compliance and disregard for court orders justified the extraordinary remedy of striking the statement of defence.

The remaining requested relief, including contempt findings, was dismissed due to procedural deficiencies.

Following prior reasons for judgment on a summary judgment motion limited to the issue of possession, the court convened to settle the form of order and address case management issues.

The court clarified that the plaintiff’s claim relating to contaminated soil and debris had not been dismissed and ordered that the reference in the draft order suggesting otherwise be deleted.

The plaintiff was directed to serve an amended statement of claim clearly articulating the causes of action, material facts, and relief sought against each defendant, with corresponding timelines for amended defences and related pleadings.

The court also scheduled completion of remaining discoveries, struck the jury notice by consent, adjourned the previously scheduled trial date, and set a new trial date.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to evict the respondent owner and his occupant due to years of disruptive behaviour, unauthorized modifications to common elements, and threats to staff and contractors.

Despite multiple previous court orders, including the removal of the occupant and findings of contempt, the respondents continued to breach the condominium rules and court orders.

Noting the respondent owner's mental illness and the severe impact on the condominium community, the court concluded that previous orders were insufficient and ordered the eviction of the respondent owner.

Following a successful motion permitting amendment of pleadings to remove claims against settling defendants pursuant to a Pierringer agreement, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The settling defendants sought costs as the successful party, while another defendant argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court held that the plaintiffs and the settling defendants were the successful parties and that the usual rule of costs to the successful party should apply.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded after assessing the reasonableness of the parties’ submitted cost outlines.

The court addressed competing procedural issues arising from a scheduled motion involving requests to compel mediation, amend pleadings, obtain discovery-related relief, and compel production of allegedly privileged documents.

The parties consented to adjourn the motion but disputed the timetable for intervening procedural steps.

The court imposed a revised schedule governing delivery of an expert report, responding affidavit, cross-examinations, and factums, culminating in a new motion date.

The court also struck portions of the plaintiff’s affidavit that contained counsel’s opinions rather than admissible facts and refused to admit a responding affidavit containing inflammatory allegations.

Costs of the attendance were reserved to the hearing of the motions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to remove settling defendants following a Pierringer agreement and to restrict their remaining claim to nuisance against the non-settling defendants.

The non-settling defendants opposed and sought judgment dismissing the action, arguing the settlement terms barred the plaintiffs from continuing proceedings where contribution or indemnity claims existed.

The court held that amendments under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure should be granted absent non-compensable prejudice.

The court found that the non-settling defendants retained their substantive right to pursue contribution or indemnity through declaratory relief and that any prejudice could be addressed in costs.

The amendment was permitted and the non-settling defendants’ motion for judgment was dismissed.

L'appelante a interjeté appel du rejet de son action en diffamation à la Cour des petites créances.

Elle alléguait que l'intimée avait tenu des propos diffamatoires à son égard lors d'une évaluation de rendement et à deux de ses connaissances qui enquêtaient sous un faux prétexte.

La Cour divisionnaire a confirmé que le juge de première instance n'a pas erré en concluant que les deux connaissances agissaient comme agents de l'appelante, ce qui annulait la publication à des tierces parties.

De plus, le refus d'accorder un ajournement pour faire entendre un technicien audio constituait un exercice raisonnable de la discrétion judiciaire.

L'appel a été rejeté.

The appellant and other Canadians sought to acquire potential losses from a U.S. partnership for use as an income tax deduction in Canada.

They became assignees of the interests of the original American partners and immediately disposed of the partnership's apartment complex back to the original partners, realizing accounting losses.

They also acquired a one percent interest in a Canadian oil and gas property.

The Minister disallowed the claim for partnership losses under s. 96 of the Income Tax Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the fundamental criteria of a valid partnership—carrying on business in common with a view to profit—were not met.

The Court found no intention to profit from the apartment complex and concluded the oil and gas investment did not establish an ancillary profit-making purpose.

Furthermore, the Court held that an assignee of a partnership interest must satisfy the essential ingredients of a partnership under Canadian law to be considered a partner for tax purposes.