D.A. Broad

The plaintiff moved for leave to amend her Statement of Claim to add the Crown and a road maintenance contractor as defendants after the presumptive expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The proposed defendants opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of discoverability.

The court found that the plaintiff had knowledge of the icy road conditions from the motor vehicle accident report and her own application for statutory accident benefits, but failed to show due diligence in investigating the potential liability of the road maintenance authorities within the limitation period.

The motion to amend the Statement of Claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for injuries sustained after falling from the roof of their home while performing renovations.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that the plaintiff was acting as a contractor and the defendants, as occupiers, had no duty to provide safety equipment or supervise his work.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The accused, a nurse in a long-term care facility, was tried on five counts of sexual assault involving co-workers and a student trainee in a supervisory workplace context.

The court admitted the evidence on four counts as similar fact evidence, finding a distinctive pattern of unsolicited, spontaneous touching of subordinate workers in the same workplace.

Applying the W. (D.) framework and the sexual assault analysis from Chase, the court found the Crown proved guilt on three counts, including incidents involving grabbing a complainant's bottom, lifting a complainant's top to inspect whether pants were sheer, and multiple sexualized touching incidents against another complainant.

The accused was acquitted on two counts because the court either retained a reasonable doubt or was not satisfied the proven touching was sexual in nature beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant, having been successful in the proceeding, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $91,766.46.

The plaintiff submitted that $60,000 was a reasonable amount but provided no meaningful explanation or costs outline to support this figure.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, the complexity of the $50 million claim, and the principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations.

Finding no basis to deviate from the defendant's requested amount, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of $91,766.46.

The applicant was convicted of refusing to provide a breath sample and sentenced to a fine, probation, and a 12-month driving prohibition.

She appealed the conviction and applied for a stay of the driving prohibition pending the appeal.

The court applied the test for a stay pending appeal, finding that the appeal was not frivolous, continuation of the prohibition was not necessary in the public interest, and granting the stay would not detrimentally affect public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for a stay was granted.

On a summary judgment motion arising from the termination of a non-exclusive distribution agreement, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the distributor's claims for wrongful termination, misappropriation of confidential information, solicitation, breach of good faith, and interference with contractual relations.

The court found that the contract expressly permitted termination without cause on 60 days' notice, that the moving party did not breach the duty of honest contractual performance under Bhasin, and that the responding party's evidence of bad faith and confidential information misuse was inadmissible, speculative, or insufficiently particularized.

The court also held that the responding party anticipatorily breached the agreement by stating it would not pay outstanding invoices, which independently justified termination for cause.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action and allowing the counterclaim for unpaid invoices with contractual pre- and post-judgment interest at 15 percent.

Following a trial where the plaintiffs were awarded $70,563 in damages, the successful defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis to the date of its offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court found that the defendant was only entitled to partial indemnity costs, as elevated costs require a clear finding of reprehensible conduct, which was absent here.

The court also reduced the costs claimed to account for some inefficiency in the defendant's use of two counsel at trial, ultimately fixing costs at $141,568.73.

The offender was convicted by a jury of theft over $5,000 for stealing approximately $21,600 from his employer while working as a vending machine route driver.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for employee breach of trust cases, rejecting the defence's request for an intermittent sentence.

The offender was sentenced to four months' incarceration, one year of probation, 50 hours of community service, and ordered to pay full restitution.

The parties were unable to settle the issue of costs following the respondent's interim motion regarding the primary residence of the child.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $4,500, arguing she was the successful party and had made reasonable settlement offers.

The respondent argued for no costs or partial indemnity costs in the cause.

The court found the applicant was the successful party on the predominant issue of primary residence and awarded her partial indemnity costs fixed at $3,400.

The mortgagors brought a motion for leave to file an expert report regarding the calculation of a criminal rate of interest under s. 347 of the Criminal Code, after having conducted cross-examinations.

The mortgagees opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking an order that the mortgagors pay an additional sum into court to secure the increased interest and costs resulting from the delay.

The court granted the mortgagors leave to file the expert report, but ordered them to pay an additional $106,500 into court to mitigate the prejudice to the mortgagees caused by the delay and the need to respond to the late-filed report.

Sentencing following conviction for sexual interference involving the prolonged sexual abuse of a child stepdaughter between ages 10 and 12 by an offender in a position of trust.

The court held that denunciation, deterrence, and separation from society were the primary sentencing objectives under ss. 718 and 718.01 of the Criminal Code, and treated the victim’s age, vulnerability, grooming, oral sex, persistence of abuse, and breach of trust as significant aggravating factors.

Although the offender had no prior record and had suffered collateral personal consequences, the court found a penitentiary sentence was required.

A sentence of four years’ imprisonment was imposed, together with DNA, weapons prohibition, child-contact prohibition, SOIRA, and custodial no-contact orders.

Following a motion for interim child and spousal support, the parties were unable to settle the issue of costs and provided written submissions.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $12,096.93, while the respondent sought costs of $11,053.21.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party as she had to bring the motion to obtain support, which the respondent had not paid voluntarily.

However, the court reduced the applicant's fee claim by 30 percent because the respondent prevailed on several issues, including the income determination basis and retroactivity.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of $8,494.96.

The accused, charged with theft over $5,000 and possession of property obtained by crime, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized from her home.

She argued the search warrant was invalid because the Information to Obtain (ITO) failed to disclose that the workplace video surveillance was motion-activated and contained a time gap.

The court dismissed the application, finding the omissions were not material to the existence of reasonable and probable grounds and were not made intentionally or recklessly.

The court concluded the search did not violate s. 8 of the Charter and, alternatively, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

Following Suncor's successful motion for summary judgment dismissing the action against it, the parties made written submissions on costs.

Suncor sought substantial indemnity costs and argued the plaintiff's counsel should be personally liable for costs under Rule 57.07(1).

The plaintiff argued no costs should be awarded or that enforcement should be stayed pending trial against the remaining defendants to allow for a potential Sanderson order.

The court awarded Suncor partial indemnity costs of $34,877.53, finding no basis for substantial indemnity costs or personal costs against counsel.

The court also denied the stay, concluding there was no reasonable prospect of a Sanderson order being granted.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict custody dispute over their 6-year-old son following their separation.

The mother sought sole custody, while the father initially sought joint custody but amended his claim to sole custody at trial.

A section 30 assessment recommended a parallel parenting regime, but the court rejected this due to the entrenched conflict and inability of the parents to communicate effectively.

The court awarded sole custody and primary residence to the mother, finding she was better positioned to provide a stable environment and multidimensional guidance, and was more likely to foster the child's relationship with the father.

The father was granted a specified access schedule.

The court also ruled on the admissibility of out-of-court statements made by the child regarding alleged physical discipline in the father's home, finding them inadmissible for the truth of their contents due to reliability concerns.

The father was ordered to pay child support in accordance with the Guidelines.

The defendant, a lawyer who purchased the plaintiff's legal practice, brought a motion to temporarily stay the plaintiff's breach of contract action pending the outcome of an ongoing Law Society investigation into the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's license had been suspended on an interlocutory basis.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Law Society's findings would likely be inadmissible, the defendant could lead independent evidence on the issues, and a stay would cause injustice by delaying the plaintiff's access to the courts.

The plaintiff commenced an action arising from a 2006 motor vehicle accident but failed to serve the Statement of Claim within the required time.

The defendant argued the action was deemed dismissed under the revoked Rule 48.15(6) because no step was taken between 2010 and 2012.

The court held that an unsuccessful attempt to serve the claim in 2011 constituted a 'step' in the proceeding, preventing the deemed dismissal.

Alternatively, the court exercised its discretion to order that the rule did not apply.

Finding no prejudice to the defendant, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to extend the time for service and validated the late service.

The applicant requested a revision to a previous endorsement, alleging an error in the calculation of the respondent's income for the purpose of interim spousal support.

The court declined to revise the endorsement, noting that the interim support was ordered on a without prejudice basis and any necessary adjustments could be made at trial following a full inquiry.

Following a previous decision, the respondent sought costs against the self-represented applicant.

The respondent presented a bill of costs for partial indemnity costs totalling $21,112.00 but limited its request to $1,000.00 due to the applicant's circumstances.

The applicant did not deliver any submissions.

The court ordered the applicant to pay costs fixed at $1,000.00.

The defendants were successful on a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's action.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff argued each party should bear its own costs because the defendants could have brought their motions earlier and the action was novel.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the action lacked merit and was not novel in a way that would displace the usual costs rules.

The court awarded the defendants their costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing Murphy's costs at $37,760.38 and Goliger's costs at $46,911.91.