Deanna M. Stea

In an occupier's liability action outstanding for over 11 years, the plaintiff moved to strike the defendants' jury notice, arguing that delay alone constituted prejudice.

The defendants opposed, asserting the motion was premature given the reopening of the economy and recent jury trials.

The court acknowledged the significant delay but noted the plaintiff's lack of affidavit evidence on prejudice.

Balancing the interests, the court provisionally struck the jury notice until February 21, 2022, to await clarity on the resumption of in-person hearings, emphasizing that the personal circumstances of counsel do not override a party's substantive right to a jury trial.

The self-represented appellants appealed the dismissal of their Small Claims Court action against Winners and the Toronto Police Services Board arising from the detention and arrest of the appellant for shoplifting.

The appellants alleged false arrest, assault, and spoilation of video evidence, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and was biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusions that the security personnel reasonably believed a theft occurred and lawfully detained the appellant.

The court also rejected arguments regarding delay in calling police, spoilation of evidence, and the admissibility of hearsay statements in medical records.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to strike the defendants’ civil jury notice in a motor vehicle personal injury action, arguing that pandemic-related suspension of jury trials created unacceptable delay and prejudice.

The court granted leave to bring the motion but dismissed the request to strike the jury notice, holding that the moving party had not met the substantial onus of showing that justice would be better served by a judge-alone trial.

The court found the evidentiary record deficient on both sides, noted that civil jury trials in Toronto had an anticipated resumption date rather than an indefinite suspension, and accepted that a wait-and-see approach was appropriate in the circumstances.

The dismissal was without prejudice to a future renewed motion.

The applicant client disputed the terms of retainer with his former law firm, contending a contingency fee agreement (20-25%) while the solicitors claimed an hourly rate ($600/hour).

The court found that the solicitors failed to meet the heavy onus to prove the hourly rate agreement, given the lack of a written retainer and the client's understanding.

The court concluded that the client was retained on a contingency fee basis of 25% plus HST and disbursements.

Following the dismissal of 42 consolidated motions for leave to appeal costs awards in 37 class actions, the respondent insurers sought costs totalling $345,349.36.

The Court of Appeal assessed the bills of costs submitted by various law firms representing the insurers.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable rather than a strict mathematical calculation of hours times rates, the Court reduced the amounts claimed, noting that the complexity was procedural rather than legal or factual.

The Court fixed the total costs payable to the insurers at $141,645.26.

The appellants and the Law Foundation of Ontario sought leave to appeal costs orders made by the case management judge following the dismissal of several proposed class actions against automobile insurers.

The motion judge had awarded costs to the successful insurers, including substantial indemnity costs where the plaintiffs persisted with unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and deceit to overcome limitation periods.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of discretion regarding entitlement or scale of costs.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After failing to resolve the dispute at mediation, the applicant applied for arbitration but subsequently failed to attend two pre-hearing discussions and the arbitration hearing itself.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application.

The arbitrator granted the motion, finding that the applicant failed to participate in the process or produce evidence to substantiate his claims.

The arbitration was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $500.