C. Wahlman

The defendant brought a motion seeking to transfer the action from Brampton (Central West Region) to Fort Frances (Northwest Region) and to require the plaintiff to post security for costs.

The plaintiff, a Colorado corporation conducting dog agility shows, sued the defendant for breach of contract, breach of confidential information, intentional damage to personal property, bad faith, libel, slander, and unlawful interference with economic relations.

The defendant, a resident of Fort Frances, was served there.

The court found that none of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Ontario, no damages were sustained there, and the subject matter had no connection to Brampton.

The court granted the transfer to Fort Frances and ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in the amount of $5,000 within 30 days, finding the plaintiff had not met its onus of demonstrating sufficient assets in Ontario or a reciprocating jurisdiction.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action for property damage after a three-day Simplified Procedure trial, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The successful defendant sought $55,055.71 on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on multiple offers to settle.

The court found that Rule 49.10 did not apply because the plaintiffs' claim failed entirely, and the defendant's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs of $20,000 plus $1,921.71 in disbursements, disallowing a $2,700 expert fee.

The plaintiffs, an independent truck driver and his company, sued the defendant for the value of a transport truck destroyed by fire while leased to the defendant.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendant breached their National Transportation Lease Agreement by failing to obtain first-party property damage insurance, and claimed negligent misrepresentation regarding the extent of coverage.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding the contract clearly placed the onus on the plaintiffs to satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the insurance provided, which only covered third-party liability.

The court found no unconscionability, ambiguity, or negligent misrepresentation in the commercial transaction.