Dalton McGuinty Jr.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of an infant settlement arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court identified several deficiencies in the motion record, including a lack of clarity on the scope of the settlement approval sought (whether it included the adult plaintiff's claims), insufficient evidence regarding the minor plaintiff Rider's specific losses for care, guidance, and companionship, and a potential conflict of interest for the litigation guardian (who was also an injured plaintiff) if the total damages claimed exceeded the defendant's insurance limits.

The court declined to approve the settlement at this stage and required additional materials and clarification before making a decision.

This motion concerned the approval of a settlement for three minor plaintiffs and the associated contingency fee agreement.

The court approved the settlement amounts for the minors, finding them reasonable for Family Law Act claims.

However, the contingency fee agreement was not approved due to non-compliance with the Solicitors Act, specifically because it included costs in the fee calculation, rendering it void and unenforceable.

The court directed that legal fees be paid entirely from the adult plaintiffs' portion of the settlement and that the minor plaintiffs' funds be paid into court due to lack of appointed guardians for property and insufficient particulars for proposed Registered Education Savings Plans.

The court issued a costs endorsement following an 8-day jury trial for damages from a motor vehicle accident.

The self-represented plaintiff was unsuccessful, with the jury awarding $10,000 in general damages but nothing for lost income or future housekeeping.

A threshold motion was granted, disentitling the plaintiff from general damages.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs.

The court allowed the defendant's claim for fees but reduced disbursements due to lack of receipts or explanation, awarding a total of $80,980.99 to the defendant.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court trial judgment dismissing her action against the respondent for trespass.

Prior to trial, a settlement had been reached and the respondent paid the appellant $18,000.

The settlement was later vacated by court order, which required the appellant to return the $18,000 before proceeding to trial.

The appellant proceeded to trial without repaying the funds and subsequently appealed the trial decision.

The Divisional Court stayed the appeal, ordering that the stay would become permanent if the appellant failed to repay the $18,000 within 30 days, citing the need to enforce compliance with court orders.

The plaintiff, a volunteer painter at the defendant's church, fell from an eight-foot stepladder while installing ceiling trim and suffered a severe head injury.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action.

The plaintiffs argued the defendant breached its duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act and relied on expert evidence suggesting the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) standards should apply.

The court found that the OHSA did not apply to volunteers and that the defendant had provided a reasonably safe environment, including a stable ladder and appropriate instructions.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the plaintiff undertook the task of his own volition and there was no evidence of what caused the fall.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The plaintiff corporation sued its former solicitor in negligence, alleging he was in a conflict of interest and breached his fiduciary duty while acting for both sides in a joint venture and subsequent purchase and sale agreement for an apartment building conversion.

The plaintiff claimed the solicitor failed to advise them of their options when purchasers resiled from agreements and failed to disclose a vendor take back mortgage provided to another party.

The court dismissed the action, finding that while the solicitor breached the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to obtain written consent for the joint retainer, his conduct did not fall below the standard of care of a reasonably competent solicitor.

The court also found no breach of fiduciary duty, as the undisclosed information was not material, and concluded the plaintiff failed to establish causation or damages.

The appellant commenced an action in Small Claims Court against the respondent business bureau for libel and breach of contract, which was dismissed after trial.

The appellant subsequently commenced multiple separate actions against the business bureau, its employees, and its legal counsel.

A Deputy Judge struck these subsequent actions under Rule 12.02 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court based on cause of action estoppel.

The appellant appealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Deputy Judge's application of the doctrine of cause of action estoppel or Rule 12.02.

Following a nine‑week jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs obtained a damages award substantially lower than the amount claimed.

The defendants relied on Rule 49.10(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and argued they were entitled to partial indemnity costs from the date of a pre‑trial offer to settle because the judgment was allegedly less favourable than their offer.

The court held that although the offer met the timing requirement, the offer’s treatment of prejudgment interest on a lump‑sum amount was ambiguous and incapable of precise calculation for mixed heads of damages attracting different statutory interest rates under the Courts of Justice Act.

Because the offer lacked sufficient certainty to trigger the Rule 49 cost consequences, the defendants failed to meet their burden under Rule 49.10(3).

Considering the Rule 57 factors and the circumstances of the litigation, the court awarded the plaintiffs their partial indemnity costs throughout the proceeding.