Eric S. Baum

Following an earlier ruling denying the defendants’ request to amend a litigation timetable and seek a summary judgment date, the court addressed the issue of costs for the related proceeding.

The plaintiff sought over $10,000 in partial indemnity costs, asserting that the defendants’ failure to properly file motion materials and respond to correspondence caused unnecessary steps and expense.

The defendants argued that costs should be reserved pending a forthcoming motion for leave to bring summary judgment and, if awarded, should be minimal.

The court found that the defendants’ failure to properly advance their motion and respond to requests caused unnecessary work for the plaintiff.

However, broader costs relating to the proposed summary judgment proceedings were deferred, and the plaintiff was awarded a reduced amount for specific unnecessary steps.

The defendants sought to adjourn their summary judgment motion and amend the litigation timetable to allow for the examination of their expert witness.

The plaintiff opposed the request, citing the defendants' failure to diligently pursue the motion and comply with the timetable.

The court found that the defendants caused the delay and failed to properly file their motion materials in accordance with Rule 37.08(1).

The court held there was nothing to adjourn and ordered that the defendants must obtain leave to bring any future summary judgment motion or motion to amend the timetable.

Multiple motions arising from five civil proceedings related to the Algo Centre Mall collapse sought transfer of a certified class action to Sault Ste.

Marie, trial together or common case management of related actions, and appointment of a single motions judge.

The court held that opt-out plaintiffs in separate proceedings lacked standing under rule 13.1.02 to seek transfer of the class action, and in any event failed to show that Sault Ste.

Marie was a significantly better venue than Toronto in the interest of justice.

The court further declined relief under s. 107(1) of the Courts of Justice Act because any transfer necessary to enable common case management or trial together would impose substantial cost and inefficiency, particularly given the existing class action case management structure.

Appointment of a rule 37.15 judge was also refused.

Following certification of a class proceeding arising from the collapse of a shopping mall, the court determined the appropriate allocation of costs for the certification motion.

Most defendants did not oppose certification and several entered into settlement agreements regarding costs.

The court distinguished between baseline costs that would have been incurred even if certification had proceeded on consent and additional costs caused by defendants who opposed certification.

The judge concluded that $140,000 represented additional costs attributable to opposition and allocated remaining unpaid costs primarily to the provincial government, whose extensive submissions challenged multiple certification criteria.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 against one defendant and $60,000 against the provincial government, with other amounts accounted for through settlements.

The appellant moved before the Divisional Court to review an order dismissing her motion to waive the fee for a transcript required for her Small Claims Court appeal.

The appellant alternatively sought to proceed without a transcript or have the respondent pay for it.

The court upheld the motion judge's finding that there is no statutory authority to waive transcript fees under the Administration of Justice Act.

The court also held that a transcript was necessary because the appeal was fact-driven, and declined to order the respondent to pay for it as the case did not meet the test for interim costs.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action following the collapse of the Algo Centre Mall roof in Elliot Lake, which killed two people and injured dozens.

The proposed class included occupants, tenants, and employees of the mall.

The defendants included the mall owners, builders, engineers, and the Province of Ontario.

The Province opposed certification, arguing it owed no private law duty of care for negligent inspection.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a valid cause of action for negligent inspection against the Province and that all five prerequisites for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The self-represented appellants, former doctoral students, sought an extension of time to perfect their appeal from a motion judge's order striking their 187-page statement of claim against the university and its staff without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal applied the four-factor test for extending time, focusing on the merits of the appeal.

While agreeing that most of the appellants' claims (including Charter, human rights, and intentional torts) were bound to fail, the Court found that claims for negligence and breach of contract regarding the university's handling of accommodation requests and tuition fees were not plainly and obviously doomed.

Concluding the appeal had sufficient merit, the Court granted a 30-day extension to perfect the appeal.

The plaintiffs purchased a property for development but later discovered erosion issues.

They sought legal advice from the moving defendants on whether they could terminate the transaction.

The moving defendants advised them to close the transaction and sue the real estate agents later.

The plaintiffs followed this advice, suffered a loss on resale, and sued multiple parties, including the moving defendants for professional negligence.

The moving defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that factual conflicts regarding the advice given and the absence of affidavit evidence from a second lawyer present at the meeting created genuine issues requiring a trial.