D. Girlando

The plaintiff, who was rendered paraplegic following spinal surgery, brought a motion to amend his statement of claim to add his former family doctor and chiropractor as defendants, and to add new allegations against the defendant surgeon.

The surgeon brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding the delay was not contumelious and caused no actual prejudice.

The court denied the plaintiff's request to add new allegations against the surgeon, ruling they were statute-barred new causes of action.

However, the court allowed the addition of the family doctor and chiropractor, finding the claims against them were not reasonably discoverable until the plaintiff's counsel obtained and reviewed the family doctor's medical chart.

Following dismissal of a plaintiff’s summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action, the court determined costs.

The defendant had made a written settlement offer that was more favourable to the plaintiff than the ultimate outcome and would have avoided further litigation.

The court held that although the strict cost consequences of Rule 49.10 did not apply to a successful defendant, the offer remained a relevant factor under Rules 49.13 and 57.01 in exercising discretion on costs.

The court also considered the plaintiff’s failure to proceed under the simplified procedure in Rule 76 despite the claim falling within its monetary threshold.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the termination provisions in his employment agreement were unenforceable and that he was entitled to common law reasonable notice.

The agreement limited termination notice to the minimum required by the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA).

The court rejected arguments that the employer had repudiated the agreement or that the termination clause was void for contracting out of ESA minimum standards or for ambiguity.

Applying contractual interpretation principles and the agreement’s severability clause, the court held the termination provision valid and enforceable.

The motion was dismissed and the ESA-based termination provision governed the notice entitlement.

This decision addresses costs following earlier rulings in related applications concerning a commercial lease dispute.

The court found that the responding party had taken an erroneous legal position regarding a mediated settlement and attempted to re‑litigate claims that had already been released.

The conduct led to withheld rent payments and triggered the opposing party’s applications to secure rent payment.

Given the unreasonable litigation position and unsupported allegations of fraud-like misconduct, the court held that costs on a substantial indemnity scale were appropriate.

Costs of $130,000 inclusive were awarded to the successful party.

The landlord and tenant under a commercial lease both commenced applications regarding alleged defaults and rent calculations.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's application, arguing that the claims were barred by a prior settlement and mutual release executed in September 2013.

The court applied an objective approach to contractual interpretation and the doctrine of res judicata, finding that the release barred any claims existing prior to September 30, 2013.

However, the court held that the release did not bar the tenant's right to a rent reconciliation for the 2013 calendar year or ongoing rights under the lease.

The court ordered the remaining issues regarding square footage and rent quantum to proceed to trial as an action.