Eric Mathieu Joseph Brousseau

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiffs' action, the successful defendant sought costs of $25,000 to $30,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on an expired offer to settle.

The plaintiffs argued for costs in the range of $10,000 to $15,000.

The court found that substantial indemnity costs were not justified as the offer to settle had expired long before the motion and the case raised important issues for the plaintiffs.

The court awarded the defendant costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $23,376.43.

The defendant landlord brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for wrongful termination of a commercial lease.

The landlord had unilaterally increased the minimum and additional rent shortly after purchasing the building, and terminated the lease when the tenant refused to pay the increased amounts.

The court found that the tenant was not in breach of the lease, as the rent increases were not authorized by the lease terms and the landlord was estopped from changing the rent calculation method.

The court also held that the individual plaintiff could claim damages for the loss of value of her shares in the operating company, as the company was not a party to the lease and had no independent cause of action.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs, awarding damages for the loss of the business and return of the deposit.

The defendant, a second mortgagee, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action alleging an improvident sale of a property under a power of sale.

The plaintiffs, who held a third mortgage, received nothing from the sale and claimed the defendant failed to obtain fair market value and inflated costs.

The court found that the sale was not improvident, noting the property had been recently exposed to the market, the sale price was supported by appraisals, and the purchaser was ready and willing to close.

The court also held that the plaintiffs had already received an accounting and any further dispute regarding costs should be pursued through the assessment process under the Mortgages Act.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, seeking additional security for the discovery stage and for the period from discoveries to trial.

Previously, $45,000 in security had been ordered, with the court finding that 1636833 Ontario Inc. (833) had insufficient assets.

On this motion, the plaintiffs provided new, more comprehensive evidence of 833's financial condition, including significant bank balances, investment accounts, and revenue from an active business relationship.

The court found that 833 now demonstrated sufficient liquid and unencumbered assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award, dismissing the defendants' motions for further security for costs.

The decision reiterated the limits of speculative inquiries into a company's future financial prospects on such motions.

The plaintiffs brought an action in defamation against the defendant, a former union member, for publishing numerous derogatory posts and videos online.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, and the defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that an anti-SLAPP motion can be heard concurrently with a summary judgment motion.

The court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that while the expression related to a matter of public interest, the harm suffered by the plaintiffs outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding the posts defamatory and malicious, and awarded a permanent injunction and costs.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to strike the plaintiff's claim against an individual defendant (Sam Mizrahi) for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, an order requiring the plaintiff and its employee to undertake not to interfere with the defendants' economic relations, and security for costs.

The court granted the motion to strike the claim against the individual defendant without leave to amend, finding no reasonable cause of action and that it was frivolous/vexatious.

The motion for injunctive relief was dismissed as there was no underlying cause of action.

Security for costs was granted in the amount of $200,000, payable in installments.

The appellants sought to add three health care providers as defendants to a medical malpractice action more than two years after the original injury.

The motion judge dismissed the motion on the basis that the limitation period had expired.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge applied the wrong test under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the motion judge failed to make proper findings of fact regarding when the appellants knew or ought reasonably to have known of their claims against the proposed defendants.

The court also found that the motion judge erred in treating lack of due diligence as a standalone ground for finding claims statute-barred.

The key distinction was that the claims against the proposed defendants differed from the claim against the original defendant, as they involved allegations that the health care providers failed to take immediate action once cauda equina syndrome was suspected, information that was only revealed during examinations for discovery in 2015.

The respondent Picture Perfect Film Assets, LLC (PPFA) brought a motion to stay an application by the MacLaren Art Centre (MAC) concerning the ownership and sale of Rodin bronze sculptures.

PPFA argued for a stay based on forum non conveniens, issue estoppel, res judicata, abuse of process, and the 'good case management rule,' favouring a broader, earlier-filed Washington action.

MAC contended that its Ontario application, rooted in local bankruptcy proceedings and involving Ontario parties and law, was appropriate.

The court dismissed PPFA's motion, finding that Ontario was an appropriate forum and PPFA failed to demonstrate that Washington was 'clearly more appropriate' under the forum non conveniens analysis.

The court also declined to apply equitable doctrines or the good case management rule to stay the Ontario proceedings.

The accused, charged with making, circulating, or publishing a false prospectus contrary to s. 400 of the Criminal Code, brought a motion for a directed verdict after the Crown closed its case.

The accused argued there was insufficient evidence that she knew the prospectus contained a material misrepresentation regarding a $20 million private placement, or that she actively circulated it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the circumstantial evidence—including her role as a founding member, her signing of the prospectus, and her failure to act when informed of severe financial discrepancies—was reasonably capable of supporting an inference of guilt by a properly instructed jury.

The court held that the limited weighing of circumstantial evidence on a directed verdict motion does not permit the judge to resolve competing inferences, which remains the province of the jury.

The self-represented applicant, facing serious fraud-related charges in a lengthy jury trial, suffered a severe cardiac event during the trial.

Medical evidence from his cardiologists indicated a 100% blockage of a main artery and recommended two to three months of rest to avoid a potentially fatal heart attack.

The court granted the motion for a mistrial, finding that continuing the trial posed a serious risk to the applicant's health and his ability to make full answer and defence.

The applicant agreed to waive any s. 11(b) Charter arguments arising from the delay.

Les requérants, accusés de fraude et de parjure, ont présenté une motion en vertu de l'alinéa 11(b) de la Charte pour obtenir un arrêt des procédures en raison de délais déraisonnables.

Le délai total anticipé entre le dépôt des accusations et la fin du procès était de plus de 50 mois.

Après avoir déduit les délais imputables à la défense, le délai net dépassait le plafond de 30 mois établi par l'arrêt Jordan.

La Cour a conclu que le dossier était d'une complexité particulière justifiant les délais excédentaires, compte tenu du volume de la preuve, du nombre de témoins, de la tenue d'un procès conjoint et bilingue devant jury, et de la nature des accusations.

La motion a été rejetée.

The appellant, counsel for the plaintiff in an underlying action, appealed a motion judge's order requiring him to personally pay $84,000 in costs on a joint and several basis with his client under Rule 57.07.

The underlying action had been dismissed as an abuse of process and a collateral attack on prior rulings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had adequate notice of the grounds for the costs order and that the motion judge properly exercised her discretion.

The motion judge correctly concluded that the appellant caused costs to be incurred without reasonable cause by commencing an abusive action and taking unreasonable procedural steps, such as insisting on a jurisdiction motion proceeding alongside a motion to strike.

The court considered costs following a successful motion by Hardath Singh, Ramkali Mohan, 1415006 Ontario Ltd., and Maple Leaf Wheelchair Manufacturing Inc. to secure a stay of a Notice of Arbitration.

The success was based on the legal principle against a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings of fact, which outweighed the policy favouring arbitration agreements.

Despite the successful outcome for these parties, the court ordered that costs be "in the cause" citing fairness under Rule 57.01(i).

This decision defers the final determination of costs to the trial judge, who will have a full understanding of the conflicting claims and procedural history.

M.N., suffering from terminal cancer with a prognosis of less than six months, sought a court order declaring that she met the criteria for a physician-assisted death under the constitutional exemption granted in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 SCC 4.

She also sought a declaration that her physician-assisted death would not require physicians to notify the coroner under the Coroners Act.

The court found M.N. to be a competent adult with a grievous and irremediable medical condition causing enduring and intolerable suffering, and that she clearly consented to the termination of her life.

The application was granted, allowing M.N. to proceed with physician-assisted death and exempting involved healthcare providers from certain Criminal Code provisions and coroner notification requirements.

The applicants sought to stay a Notice of Arbitration delivered by the respondent regarding an oppression claim, arguing that the dispute involved a non-party to the arbitration agreement and shared factual underpinnings with an ongoing court action.

The court found that while the non-party issue was not a roadblock to arbitration, there was a real danger of overlapping evidence and inconsistent findings of fact between the arbitration and the ongoing action.

The court granted the stay, ordering all matters to proceed in the Superior Court of Justice.

In proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act arising from the insolvency of a payday lending enterprise, class members moved for approval of settlement administration measures related to consumer class action settlements.

The requested approvals included a settlement distribution protocol, notice plan, privacy and information management protocol, and appointment of a claims administrator.

A third‑party creditor that had purchased loan receivables from the debtor sought accommodation to assert an equitable set‑off against class members’ settlement recoveries.

The court held that the creditor’s claim lacked the close connection required for equitable set‑off and was effectively a prejudgment garnishment against settlement funds.

The administrative protocols were approved as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of class members.

In CCAA proceedings involving a payday lending enterprise, class members in Ontario consumer class actions moved for approval of three settlement agreements forming part of a broader global resolution of litigation involving the debtor companies, their directors and officers, and related parties.

The settlements resolved certain class claims and partially resolved a third‑party lender claim, providing more than $10 million in recovery with potential participation in future litigation proceeds.

The court applied established settlement approval factors including likelihood of success, litigation risks, counsel recommendations, absence of objections, and arm’s‑length negotiations.

The court concluded that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class and the restructuring process.