David Thompson

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from an alleged campaign of harassment following the end of their romantic relationship.

The plaintiff argued her claim was saved from the basic two-year limitation period by section 16(1)(h.2)(i) of the Limitations Act, which removes the limitation period for assault if the parties had an intimate relationship.

The court found the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she had reasonable grounds to fear imminent harmful or offensive contact.

As the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred, the court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action regarding a stolen RV, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49.10 offer of $15,000.

The court found the offer was a token amount and not meaningful, awarding costs on a partial indemnity basis instead.

The court also reduced the claimed costs due to excessive preparation time billed by junior counsel, fixing the final costs award at $60,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff purchased an RV from the defendants and left it at their dealership for storage until his campsite was ready.

The RV was stolen from the dealership's lot.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for negligence as a bailee.

The court found that the defendants were a gratuitous bailee and therefore only liable for gross negligence.

After reviewing expert evidence on the dealership's security system, the court concluded the defendants met the requisite standard of care and dismissed the action.

Following a nine-week trial of a residential construction dispute, the successful builder and municipality sought costs against the unsuccessful property owners.

The builder sought elevated costs based on a Rule 49.10 offer to settle and the owners' alleged bad faith conduct.

The municipality sought elevated costs based on non-compliant offers to settle.

The court awarded the builder partial indemnity costs to the offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, finding the owners' conduct did not warrant further elevation.

The municipality was awarded partial indemnity costs throughout.

Costs were fixed at $850,000 for the builder and $100,000 for the municipality.

The builder sued the homeowners for unpaid amounts on a residential construction project.

The homeowners counterclaimed for construction deficiencies and incomplete work, and also sued the municipality for negligent building inspection.

The court found that the parties had an oral contract and that the builder did not breach it by leaving the project when the homeowners stopped paying.

The court dismissed the homeowners' claims for major structural deficiencies, finding the expert evidence of the builder more reliable.

The court also dismissed the negligence claim against the municipality, finding it met the standard of reasonable care.

The homeowners were ordered to pay the builder $558,095.52 for the unpaid balance of the contract and extras, less credits for incomplete work.

In an ongoing estate litigation matter, the court determined costs for several preliminary steps, including the determination of an estate asset, production of solicitor files, an abandoned consolidation motion, and case management conferences.

The court awarded costs to the applicant and other beneficiaries, payable largely by the former estate trustees personally due to their improper conduct and conflicts of interest, with some portions payable by the estate.

The plaintiff and third party moved for contempt of court against the defendants for failing to remove a dock as ordered in a previous trial judgment.

The court heard evidence from a Ministry of Natural Resources official regarding the defendants' efforts to obtain the necessary work permits for the removal.

The court found that the defendants were making genuine efforts to comply with the judgment and navigate the regulatory requirements, and therefore dismissed the contempt motion, ordering the defendants to continue using best efforts to remedy the nuisance.

The plaintiff and third party moved for contempt against the defendants for failing to remove a dock as ordered following a trial.

The defendants argued that the delay was due to the need for a Ministry of Natural Resources work permit and a pending appeal.

The court found that while the defendants improperly delayed applying for the permit while seeking a stay, they were justified in waiting for the permit before commencing demolition.

The court adjourned the contempt motion to allow time for the permit to be issued and the work to be completed, with leave to return if further delays occur.

The defendant director brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action against him in his personal capacity.

The plaintiff alleged the director should be personally liable for inducing breach of contract, deceit, and other torts, arguing the corporate veil should be pierced due to the director changing corporations mid-project for personal reasons.

The court dismissed the defendant's request to file a late supplementary affidavit.

The court also dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that a trial was required to determine the director's intent behind the corporate restructuring and billing practices, and whether his actions constituted a separate tort or improper conduct warranting piercing the corporate veil.

The applicant brought a motion for an interim payment out of court of funds held to the credit of the action following a shareholder dispute and oppression application.

The court previously ordered funds paid into court as security pending trial.

Relying on a recent Divisional Court decision upholding a similar prior interim payment, the court found the applicant was entitled to the funds under the formula established by the previous order.

The motion was granted and a payment of $392,712.50 was ordered.

Following the successful summary dismissal of the plaintiffs' action due to the expiry of the limitation period, the successful defendants sought costs of $15,000 each.

The plaintiffs argued for a reduced amount of $10,000 each, noting the lack of settlement offers and the principle of proportionality.

The court applied the factors under Rule 57 and the principles from Boucher and Davies, concluding that the defendants' requested amount was fair and reasonable.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $15,000 in costs to each defendant.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from Hamilton to Walkerton, arguing that a fair trial could not be held in Hamilton due to the prominent philanthropic profile of the plaintiff's principal.

The court rejected this argument, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias among the Hamilton judiciary.

The court deferred deciding whether a transfer was desirable in the interests of justice under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) until a pending motion to set aside a default judgment in the action is resolved.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for negligent construction of a cottage and retaining wall, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiffs experienced slope failure and retaining wall movement in 2009 and received an engineering report identifying the issue, but did not commence their action until 2013.

The court found that the plaintiffs knew the basic essential facts giving rise to a claim upon receiving the 2009 engineering report.

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

The plaintiffs brought an omnibus motion for certification, settlement approval, class counsel fees, and representative plaintiff honoraria in a class action against 407 ETR.

The action alleged that 407 ETR unlawfully used the plate denial remedy against insolvent vehicle owners, contrary to the stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes and approved a settlement fund of $7,965,800, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel's 30% contingency fee and a $10,000 honorarium for each of the three representative plaintiffs.

A proposed class action alleged that a charitable tax receipt program associated with private Christian school tuition resulted in participants being reassessed and penalized after the Canada Revenue Agency disallowed the tax credits.

The representative plaintiff moved on consent for certification for settlement purposes, approval of a settlement fund of up to $1.5 million, approval of class counsel’s contingency fee, and an honorarium.

The court reviewed the certification requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and concluded that the criteria were met in the settlement context.

Applying established factors governing settlement approval, the court held the agreement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the requested contingency fee, disbursements, and the representative plaintiff honorarium.

The defendants, representing 80% of the shareholders in a family business, brought a motion under section 248 of the Business Corporations Act seeking a compulsory buy-sell order to force the plaintiff, a 20% shareholder and widow of a deceased founder, to sell her shares.

The defendants argued that a deadlock existed because they did not want to share profits with a non-contributing shareholder.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants' desire to avoid sharing profits equally with the plaintiff did not constitute oppressive conduct under the Act.

The plaintiff's cross-motion for a forensic accounting was also dismissed.

In a franchise class action, the plaintiffs challenged the defendants' claims of solicitor-client privilege over certain documents and discovery refusals.

The court established seven general principles to govern the privilege claims, holding that requests for general legal information to understand rights are privileged, and that a lawyer's file compiled using professional skill is protected by work product privilege.

The court further held that pleading good faith in response to a bad faith claim does not impliedly waive privilege unless the party relies on legal advice as a material element of its defence.

The court outlined a process for the parties to apply these principles to the disputed documents and refusals ahead of a continued hearing.

Following a rear‑end motor vehicle collision, the plaintiffs sought damages for physical, psychological, and economic losses.

Liability was admitted, but the defendant disputed causation and the extent of damages, arguing the plaintiff’s ongoing back problems were attributable to a prior martial arts injury and pre‑existing disc herniation.

The court preferred the evidence of several treating and examining physicians and found the collision aggravated the pre‑existing disc condition, precipitating surgery that led to chronic pain and functional impairment.

The court also accepted expert psychological evidence that chronic pain and depression caused genuine cognitive impairments affecting the plaintiff’s work capacity.

Damages were awarded for general damages, loss of earning capacity, housekeeping costs, medical expenses, a per quod claim by the plaintiff’s company, and a Family Law Act claim by the plaintiff’s child.

The moving parties sought court approval of a proposed settlement in a certified class proceeding relating to a leveraged charitable donation tax shelter.

Participants had claimed inflated charitable tax credits based on loans and security deposits connected to the program, which were later disallowed by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The settlement provided for an $11 million payment by a defendant law firm alleged to have issued legal opinions supporting the program’s legality, with funds distributed to class members and covering counsel fees and administration.

The court applied established factors governing settlement approval in class proceedings and found the agreement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given significant litigation risks.

The court also approved class counsel fees but declined to award additional compensation to the representative plaintiffs, finding their contribution commendable but not exceptional.