Elizabeth Theresia Kurz

The moving defendants brought motions under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike claims for disclosing no cause of action.

The plaintiff, a real estate agent and social media content creator, alleged that she was defamed by two other real estate agents through social media posts.

She sued the brokers of record, branch managers, and brokerages for negligence and vicarious liability.

The court found that the negligence and vicarious liability claims were viable and disclosed reasonable prospects of success.

However, the court struck the claims for punitive damages on a theory of vicarious liability, as punitive damages cannot flow vicariously to an employer.

Leave was granted to amend the pleading to better plead aggravated and punitive damages against the individual defendants.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing a motion.

The respondent CIBC conceded that the appellant was not provided with the opportunity to make submissions in response to CIBC's Rule 2.1.01 motion.

The Court of Appeal granted the appeal, set aside the order, and remitted the motion to the Superior Court to be heard by another judge.

The Court made no determination as to the merits of the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, allowing the appellant to renew those arguments before the judge hearing the motion.

No costs were awarded.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario awarded the respondents costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The decision was made after considering submissions from counsel.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their claim for lack of jurisdiction and, alternatively, on forum non conveniens grounds, as well as seeking leave to appeal a costs order.

The motion judge had characterized the claim as contractual, not tortious, for jurisdictional purposes and found no real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's factual finding that the corporate defendant did not carry on business in Ontario, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The Court also affirmed that a court assessing jurisdiction can look beyond the plaintiff's characterization of the claim to its substance.

Regarding forum non conveniens, the Court found no error in the motion judge's balancing of factors, which heavily favoured Germany due to party agreements, defendant/witness residence, and evidence location.

Leave to appeal costs was refused as the grounds related solely to quantum.

This case involved four consolidated applications concerning arbitrations over construction defects at two hospitals.

PCL Constructors Canada Inc. challenged the arbitrators' jurisdiction, arguing non-compliance with procedural prerequisites and a limited scope of the arbitrators' power to award remedies.

Johnson Controls Canada LP sought declaratory relief regarding the nature of a contractual "Reconsideration Right" of the arbitrators' decisions, specifically whether it entailed a de novo hearing or an appeal.

The court dismissed all four applications, upholding the arbitrators' jurisdiction and declining to rule on the hypothetical future reconsideration right, stating the issue had not yet crystallized.

This case involved four consolidated applications concerning arbitrations over construction defects at two hospitals.

PCL Constructors Canada Inc. challenged the arbitrators' jurisdiction, arguing non-compliance with procedural prerequisites and a limited scope of the arbitrators' power to award remedies.

Johnson Controls Canada LP sought declaratory relief regarding the nature of a contractual "Reconsideration Right" of the arbitrators' decisions, specifically whether it entailed a de novo hearing or an appeal.

The court dismissed all four applications, upholding the arbitrators' jurisdiction and declining to rule on the hypothetical future reconsideration right, stating the issue had not yet crystallized.

The plaintiff commenced an action regarding a stream of royalty payments from a mine in Guatemala.

The defendants brought motions to strike the claim.

In response, the plaintiff delivered an amended statement of claim.

The defendants moved to declare the amended claim a nullity, arguing it could not be amended without leave in the face of a motion to strike.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to amend.

The court held that while leave is required to amend a claim in the face of a motion to strike, the motion for leave should be heard first.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend, finding that the proposed amendments were not time-barred, did not withdraw admissions, and were sufficiently particularized.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim for lack of jurisdiction, the successful defendants sought costs of $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued for costs of $5,000.

The court considered the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality under Rule 57.01, noting that the losing party should not be expected to pay for all additional costs incurred by senior counsel when junior counsel argued the motion.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 all-inclusive, reflecting what an informed client could reasonably expect to pay for a motion of moderate complexity.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for lack of jurisdiction or to stay it on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The dispute arose from a contract between the corporate plaintiff and the corporate defendant, which was accepted over the internet and contained a forum selection clause designating Germany.

The individual plaintiff attempted to plead the claims in tort and conspiracy to ground jurisdiction in Ontario.

The court found no real and substantial connection to Ontario, as the corporate defendant did not carry on business there and the tort claims were merely an attempt to convert a breach of contract action.

The motion to dismiss the action was granted.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) challenged the constitutionality of Ontario's Federal Carbon Tax Transparency Act (FCTTA) and its accompanying regulation, O. Reg. 275/19, which mandated gasoline retailers to display a specific sticker on gas pumps.

The CCLA argued this requirement constituted compelled speech, violating freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court granted the CCLA public interest standing, finding that the legislation's true purpose was partisan advocacy rather than neutral information sharing.

Consequently, the court held that the FCTTA and O. Reg. 275/19 infringed section 2(b) of the Charter and could not be justified under section 1, declaring them to be of no force or effect.