Delila Bikic

Following a trial where the defendant lawyer was ordered to return the plaintiffs' $35,000 deposit, the court determined the quantum of expenses and costs.

The court found the defendant engaged in unreasonable behaviour by misleading the court, failing to produce crucial documents, and hiding the improper release of the deposit.

The plaintiffs were awarded $5,795.50 for legal expenses incurred to recover the deposit, plus $7,500 in costs (including a penalty for unreasonable behaviour) and $416 in disbursements.

The plaintiffs paid a $35,000 deposit into the trust account of the defendant lawyer, who was acting for the vendors in a proposed asset purchase agreement.

The lawyer released the funds to his clients and kept $3,000 for himself before the agreement was even signed, and hid this fact for three years.

The court allowed the self-represented plaintiffs to amend their claim mid-trial due to the lawyer's late disclosure of documents.

The court found the lawyer was willfully blind to his clients' fraudulent scheme and breached his trust obligations to the non-client plaintiffs.

The lawyer was ordered to repay the $35,000 deposit plus up to $15,000 in legal expenses incurred by the plaintiffs.

The defendant bank brought a motion for security for costs against the self-represented plaintiff, who resided in Alberta and had no assets in Ontario.

The plaintiff's action alleged negligence and breach of duty of care arising from a mortgage pre-approval for a real estate transaction she failed to close.

The court found the defendant met the initial onus under Rule 56.01, and the plaintiff failed to establish impecuniosity or a good chance of success at trial.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in installments totaling $51,600.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed a motion for particulars brought by The Econo-Rack Group Inc. (Konstant Manufacturing) in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

The Applicant sought particulars regarding the alleged offence under section 45(b) of Ontario Regulation 851, arguing that without such particulars they could not adequately prepare a due diligence defence.

The Court held that the charge as drafted, combined with disclosure, the Crown’s opening statement, and the Inspector’s investigative report, provided sufficient detail to ensure a fair trial.

The Court emphasized that particulars concerning the cause of the accident or the means by which the offence was committed are not required under the Provincial Offences Act and that the focus is on the employer’s failure to uphold prescribed safety measures, not on causation narrowly defined.

The appellant, Leslie Arthur Swan, appealed the dismissal of his claim for conspiracy and defamation against several respondents, including a condominium corporation, its manager, and legal counsel.

The motion judge dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it was a collateral attack on earlier proceedings and statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s decision, finding no error and dismissing the appeal with costs to the respondents.

This decision addresses the application of s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the context of workplace inspections under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

The applicant, The Econo-Rack Group Inc. (Konstant Manufacturing), challenged the Ministry of Labour inspector's warrantless collection of evidence following a workplace injury, alleging an unreasonable search and seizure.

The Court applied the two-step s. 8 analysis, focusing on whether a search or seizure occurred and if it was reasonable, and considered the "predominant purpose" test from R. v. Jarvis to determine if the inspector had crossed from regulatory inspection into penal investigation requiring a warrant.

The Court found that although Konstant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the inspector's actions were authorized under s. 54 of the OHSA as part of a regulatory inspection, and no s. 8 breach occurred.

The application for exclusion of evidence and costs was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs on a pay-as-you-go basis, asserting the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario.

The court found persuasive evidence supporting the defendants' contention, noting the plaintiff's weak rebuttal evidence and refusal to be examined.

Considering the serious allegations of collusion, fraud, deceit, and conspiracy made by the plaintiff against the defendants, and the potential for substantial indemnity costs if the claims were dismissed, the court determined it would not be unjust to order security for costs.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post security for the defendants' partial indemnity costs.