Dominique Michaud

Following a successful summary judgment motion enforcing an indemnity agreement relating to a Tarion bond, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs and supplementary damages for additional bond payments and insurance premiums incurred after judgment.

The defendants argued that costs should be limited to partial indemnity and significantly reduced.

Applying the principle that costs should reflect a fair and reasonable amount rather than exact reimbursement, the court fixed costs at $20,427.52 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable jointly and severally by three individual defendants.

The court also granted supplementary partial summary judgment for additional indemnity obligations arising after the earlier judgment.

The defendants were ordered to pay $26,050.50 for additional bond payments, premiums, and contractual interest.

The plaintiff purchaser brought a motion for summary judgment seeking return of deposits and due diligence costs arising from a failed real estate transaction for development land.

The purchaser alleged the vendor breached an environmental provision in the agreement of purchase and sale relating to hazardous substances and noise contamination guidelines.

The vendor argued the provision constituted a warranty rather than a condition and that the purchaser’s refusal to close constituted default resulting in forfeiture of the deposits.

The court held that several genuine issues requiring a trial remained, including interpretation of the contractual provision, the meaning of municipal correspondence concerning application of environmental noise guidelines, proof of damages, and the availability of relief from forfeiture.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

The appellant was rendered a paraplegic during a soccer game organized by the Ontario Soccer Association (OSA).

He sued the OSA's corporate sponsors, alleging they had a duty to ensure adequate insurance coverage for players.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no relationship of sufficient proximity between the appellant and the corporate sponsors to ground a duty of care.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s $4.5 million action alleging that corporate sponsors of a soccer association owed a duty to ensure adequate insurance coverage for players, the court determined the issue of costs.

The successful defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs following a Rule 21 motion that terminated the claim at an early stage.

The court held that while the defendants were entitled to significant costs, the hours claimed by counsel were excessive and involved duplication of work.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the requested amounts and fixed reasonable costs payable to the successful defendants.

Following a motion in which the plaintiffs were completely successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court considered the defendants’ extensive submissions that went beyond the jurisdictional issues raised by the motion and addressed the merits of the case.

Applying the principles governing costs awards and recognizing the additional time and materials used by the defendants, the court held that costs somewhat above the partial indemnity scale were appropriate.

The plaintiffs were awarded a fixed all-inclusive costs amount payable within 30 days.

The defendant landlord brought a Rule 21.01(b) motion to strike portions of an amended statement of claim alleging breach of an implied contractual duty of good faith in relation to the termination of a commercial lease.

The plaintiff tenant alleged it was promised 18 months’ notice to vacate but received significantly less, asserting that the landlord’s conduct breached an implied duty of honest and good faith performance.

The court held that Canadian jurisprudence does not recognize an implied duty of good faith that would impose additional obligations inconsistent with the express terms of a commercial lease.

Accepting the pleaded facts as true, the alleged conduct did not defeat the purpose of the lease and could not sustain a claim for breach of an implied duty of good faith.

The impugned paragraphs were struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, with leave to amend.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiffs' action based on a lack of jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and abuse of process.

The plaintiffs alleged they released their interest in Ontario lands based on fraudulent misrepresentations regarding real estate and escrow funds in Dubai.

The court found a real and substantial connection to Ontario, noting the alleged fraud occurred in Ontario, the contract was governed by Ontario law, and the defendants attorned to the jurisdiction by arguing the merits of the claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding Ontario was the appropriate forum and the claim was not an abuse of process.

The defendants, corporate sponsors of a soccer organization, brought a motion under rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a negligence claim arising from a catastrophic soccer injury.

The plaintiff alleged the sponsors had a duty of care to ensure that the organization maintained adequate insurance coverage for players.

The court held that mere financial sponsorship and advertising relationships do not create a proximate relationship giving rise to a duty of care to participants.

The pleadings failed to establish reliance, proximity, or control over the event or insurance arrangements.

The statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was struck.

These consolidated appeals addressed the interpretation and application of the amended summary judgment regime under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal held that summary judgment may be granted not only where claims or defences are without merit or the parties agree, but also where the motion judge can achieve a full appreciation of the evidence and issues required to make dispositive findings on the motion record, possibly supplemented by limited oral evidence.

The court articulated the “full appreciation” test, confirmed that the standard of review on whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial is correctness, and explained the proper use of the new powers to weigh evidence, evaluate credibility, draw inferences, and hear oral evidence on discrete issues.

Applying those principles, the court dismissed the Combined Air, Misek, and Parker appeals, dismissed the Mauldin appeal, and allowed the Bruno appeal by setting aside summary judgment and dismissing the motion.

The appellant appealed from a judgment striking its pleadings for failing to disclose a cause of action relating to a breach of a duty of good faith.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action and noted that leave to amend had been granted.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.