David G. Price

The defendants, a doctor and a medical centre, moved for summary judgment to dismiss a medical negligence action, arguing it was statute-barred and lacked expert evidence.

The plaintiffs sought a further adjournment, claiming COVID-19 travel restrictions prevented them from obtaining necessary evidence from Nigeria.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the plaintiffs' reasons vague and the sought evidence irrelevant to the limitation period or the Canadian standard of care.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action, concluding there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the limitation period and the absence of a qualified expert report.

At a family law case conference, the applicant wife sought orders for financial disclosure and costs.

The respondent husband had delayed providing complete financial disclosure for over two years and provided an Estimate Valuation Report instead of a Comprehensive Valuation Report.

The court ordered the husband to pay $60,000 for the wife's expert disbursements, $20,000 for expenses incurred due to delayed disclosure, and $10,000 for the costs of the unproductive case conference.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking custody/decision-making responsibility for the child, L.G., a parenting schedule, spousal support, and contributions to the child's s. 7 expenses.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, with the child residing with the maternal grandmother and the father's parenting time at the child's discretion.

Spousal support was varied upwards to $674.00 per month on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases, and the father was ordered to pay past and ongoing s. 7 expenses.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable, including bringing a cross-motion without leave, filing prolix and irrelevant material, and taking positions contrary to established authorities.

Consequently, the mother was awarded costs on a full recovery basis.

This supplementary costs endorsement clarifies a previous Costs Order dated December 5, 2018.

The defendants requested clarification, while the plaintiffs argued the court was functus officio.

The court rejected the functus officio argument, affirming its jurisdiction to amend the order to correct an omission in expressing its manifest intention.

The clarification specifically addresses the apportionment of costs, confirming that one defendant is to pay 25% of the balance of the plaintiffs' costs, after a third party pays their 25%.

The applicant sought urgent leave to bring a motion for sole custody and specific parenting time of the parties' three-year-old child, Ta’leah, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent had unilaterally terminated the applicant's access, citing health concerns.

The court granted leave, found urgency, and restored the applicant's pre-existing access schedule with modifications for communication and compliance.

The court also provided directions for the respondent to bring an urgent cross-motion for child support, emphasizing the independence of access and support issues.

Police enforcement was deemed premature.

The applicant brought an ex parte motion seeking a restraining order against the respondent and the suspension of existing access terms, alleging escalating abusive behavior and non-compliance with bail conditions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold tests for urgency and for dispensing with notice to the respondent.

The court emphasized the objective standard for assessing risk when determining urgency, distinguishing it from the subjective fear standard for issuing a restraining order, and highlighted the fundamental principle of notice in such proceedings.

The respondent father brought a motion to contest the Ontario court's jurisdiction over the applicant mother's claims for custody and child support, arguing the child was habitually resident in Iraq.

The father had allegedly abducted the child during a vacation to the Middle East and failed to attend the case conference as ordered.

The court applied the hybrid approach to habitual residence and found the child was habitually resident in Ontario.

The father's motion was dismissed, his pleadings were struck for failing to obey court orders, and the mother was granted temporary custody and leave to proceed to an uncontested hearing.

The court, at a pre-trial conference in a construction lien action concerning a dairy barn, determined that expert evidence on construction costing was necessary to resolve disputes over "Extras" and their value.

Neither party intended to call experts.

Pursuant to Rule 52.03, the court ordered the appointment of an independent expert to inquire into and report on whether the claimed extras were outside the fixed-price contract and their value, with fees to be shared initially by the parties.

This endorsement addresses the costs of Renata Mielczarek's motion for a further inspection by a Court-appointed Supervisor in an oppression remedy application.

The Applicant achieved substantial success in her motion, which sought to quantify appropriate compensation for oppression.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale against the Respondents (excluding Birwa Rashid), finding that the underlying oppression, coupled with the respondents' obstructive conduct and contribution to delays, justified a higher scale of costs.

The court also affirmed that the self-represented applicant's claimed hourly rate and time spent were reasonable and proportional.

The respondent sought an order for wasted costs incurred due to the applicant's counsel's non-attendance at a scheduled Case Conference.

The applicant's counsel failed to attend in person, refused a prior adjournment request from the respondent's counsel, and did not seek a teleconference.

The court found the applicant's counsel's conduct unreasonable, rendering the conference less productive than it should have been.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the respondent substantial indemnity costs, fixed at $1,271.25, and directed the applicant's counsel to provide the endorsement to her client to inform discussions about who should bear the costs.

S.D. brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of the two children of the marriage and access for R.J. in accordance with the children's wishes.

The court reviewed R.J.'s history of mental illness, non-compliance with medication, and past violence towards one child, as well as the children's expressed preferences to live with S.D. and have supervised, limited contact with R.J. The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial for custody and access, concluding that it was in the children's best interests to grant S.D. sole custody and R.J. access consistent with the children's wishes, contingent on R.J.'s compliance with treatment.

The motion for partial summary judgment was allowed.

The applicant, Rozina Samnani, sought costs on a full recovery basis following a three-day trial where she was substantially successful on issues of repayment of funds, equalization of net family property, and spousal support.

The respondent, Akbar Galmani, opposed the costs, citing financial hardship and disputing the scope of the trial issues.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $12,750.00, finding her substantially successful and noting the respondent's unreasonable conduct, including failure to provide full financial disclosure and refusal of reasonable settlement offers.

The applicant, Aleksandra Mielczarek, sought an expansion of a court-appointed supervisor's mandate to conduct an on-site monitoring of the respondent companies' financial activities.

This was to verify cash sales and address discrepancies in financial reporting for the purpose of valuing shares in an ongoing oppression remedy application under section 248 of the Business Corporations Act.

The respondents did not oppose the monitoring but argued the applicant should bear the costs.

The court found the additional investigation necessary and reasonable given the nature of the business (restaurant/banquet hall with high cash transactions) and prior issues with financial transparency.

The court ordered the respondents to retain the supervisor for a four-week on-site monitoring period and to bear all associated costs.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion brought by the Mielczarek parties to consolidate their oppression applications with an action commenced by Daria Sulaiman.

The court had previously ordered the consolidation and directed that the proceedings be tried together.

The Mielczarek parties, who were self-represented, sought costs.

The court found them entitled to costs, noting the respondents' unreasonable conduct in the motion and their efforts to segregate the actions.

The court fixed costs at $7,901.33, including fees and disbursements, after making some deductions for time spent on unrelated matters and for their dual role as witnesses and advocates.

The court emphasized that self-represented litigants are entitled to costs that reflect the objectives of a costs order and are proportional to the interests at stake.

Mr. Gandhi sued Zev Investments Limited for injuries sustained after slipping on a liquid in his apartment building's stairwell.

Zev brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing no genuine issue for trial existed, as Mr. Gandhi's theories about the hazard were inconsistent and refuted by their evidence.

Mr. Gandhi maintained he slipped on paint or paint oil spilled by Zev's contractor and argued Zev failed to maintain a proper inspection system.

The court dismissed Zev's motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the cause of the fall, Zev's vicarious liability, and the adequacy of its maintenance system, concluding that a summary judgment process would not be proportionate or efficient given the need for extensive witness testimony.

Following a short marriage preceded by immigration sponsorship, the applicant sought repayment of funds transferred during the relationship, equalization, and spousal support.

The court found the respondent had obtained substantial transfers through fraudulent misrepresentation and was unjustly enriched, warranting restitution.

Applying the Family Law Act, the court rejected unequal division but ordered an equalization payment after disallowing unsupported deductions and finding undisclosed financial information adverse to the respondent.

The court further held that the applicant was entitled to compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, with the sponsorship undertaking being highly relevant under the Divorce Act, and ordered monthly support for three years at an amount departing from the usual SSAG range.

2214416 Ontario Inc. (221), a unit owner in a commercial condominium plaza, sought to sell its units for the operation of an Indian restaurant, an exclusive business use under the condominium's Declaration.

The condominium corporation (PSCC 937) refused permission, citing existing exclusive uses by other unit owners. 221 alleged that PSCC 937 failed to produce records of exclusive uses and acted oppressively by denying its request and by relying on a Declaration article that purported to absolve the corporation of enforcement duties.

The court found that the dispute primarily concerned compliance with the Condominium Act, thus granting jurisdiction.

It declared Article 2.01(i) of the Declaration inconsistent with the Act and therefore amended.

The court further found PSCC 937's refusal to produce records and permit the proposed business use to be oppressive and unfairly prejudicial to 221, ordering PSCC 937 to produce the records and permit the exclusive business use.

Damages for the breach of the Act were adjourned for assessment.

The defendants moved to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff for amounts owing on four truck leases.

The court found no procedural irregularity in the service of the statement of claim or the obtaining of default judgment.

However, applying the five-factor test for setting aside a regularly obtained default judgment, the court determined that the defendants had a plausible explanation for their delay in responding and an arguable defence on the merits, particularly regarding the authenticity of signatures on two disputed leases and the application of payments.

The court emphasized the importance of resolving matters on their merits and found that allowing the defence to proceed was in the interests of the administration of justice.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was granted.

The parties, former romantic partners and co-owners of a rental property, disputed the division of sale proceeds following their separation.

The applicant, who had exclusive possession of the lower unit for four years, sought reimbursement for property expenses.

The respondent claimed occupation rent and compensation for lost rental income due to the applicant's failure to rent out his unit after vacating it.

The court found no partnership existed under the Partnership Act and determined that the applicant was solely responsible for expenses during his occupancy.

The applicant was held liable for half the deficiency in rent for the period he failed to rent the lower unit after vacating it, and was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Augusta Tiberi, acting as Attorney for Property for her deceased father, Giustino Ricci, misappropriated estate funds, incurred debt for personal benefit, and improperly transferred the family home into joint tenancy and then solely into her name, subsequently mortgaging it for personal use.

Following Mr. Ricci's death, his other children initiated litigation to ensure proper estate administration.

The parties settled all substantive claims, leaving only the issue of costs.

The court found that Ms. Tiberi's counsel, Dorothy Hagel, pursued an untenable defense, misled the court, and facilitated her client's breaches of court orders, significantly increasing litigation costs.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the plaintiffs, reduced for proportionality, and held Ms. Hagel jointly and severally liable for these costs, personally responsible for 25% due to her misconduct.