Evan L. Tingley

This motion sought an order for security for costs against the plaintiff, an Ontario corporation, in a $20 million lawyer's negligence claim.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs, citing a previous decision where the same plaintiff was ordered to post security and its sole shareholder failed to establish impecuniosity.

The court applied the two-step inquiry under Rule 56.01, finding that the defendants had good reason to believe the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate ample assets or impecuniosity, and its claim was not found to have a "good chance of success." The motion was granted, ordering the plaintiff to post security for costs totaling $149,000 in three installments, and staying the proceeding until the first installment was posted.

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

The defendant argued that the corporate plaintiff was not a party to the lease and the personal plaintiff could not claim damages suffered by the corporation under the rule in Foss v. Harbottle.

The court found that while the current pleadings did not support an independent claim for the personal plaintiff, dismissing the action would allow the defendant to escape liability for an alleged breach.

The court adjourned the motion for two months to allow the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order staying its action for wrongful termination and tortious misconduct based on a forum selection clause in an Exclusive Sales Agreement.

The clause required disputes to be settled by binding arbitration in Germany.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the broad language of the clause captured both the contract and tort claims against the contracting party.

The majority also upheld the stay against the non-contracting respondents, finding their claims were factually intertwined with those against the contracting party.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal in part, finding no jurisdiction to force arbitration on non-parties.

This decision addresses costs following an application for partition and sale of a jointly owned property and a subsequent accounting reference.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs for both the application and the reference.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs for a portion of the reference, citing an offer to settle.

The court found the applicant successful on the initial application and the respondent successful on the reference hearing.

Applying principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, and considering the mixed success and similar overall partial indemnity fees, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim.

The court considered whether the successful defendants, Sparkasse Siegen and Thomas Magnete GmbH, should receive costs on a higher scale due to settlement offers, and whether costs should be awarded against a non-party, Mr. Mellema.

The court declined to award higher scale costs, finding the plaintiffs' claim was not frivolous and their refusal to accept settlement offers was not unreasonable.

It also declined to award costs against Mr. Mellema personally, noting the defendants' awareness of his involvement and their prior opportunities to seek increased security for costs or provide notice.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to both defendants.

The applicant and respondent, mother and son, disputed the accounting of net proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned condominium.

The respondent had lived in the property rent-free for 20 years and claimed sole beneficial ownership, as well as credits for sweat equity and management fees.

The court found the property was owned 50/50 and denied the respondent's claims for sweat equity and management fees.

The court also denied the applicant's claim for occupation rent, finding the presumption was rebutted by the family's intention for the respondent to live rent-free and the lack of prior notice for the claim.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment against the defendants for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The defendants raised five defenses.

The court granted summary judgment on four defenses (unenforceability due to waiver, bad faith, mitigation, and insufficient funds to close a secondary property purchase), finding no genuine issue for trial on these points.

However, a trial of an issue was ordered to determine the foreseeability of the quantum of forfeited deposits related to the secondary property purchase, as there was conflicting evidence regarding the defendants' knowledge of the deposit amounts at the time of contract.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for a debt of approximately €511,000, claiming it was assigned to him by a German bank.

The defendants admitted the debt but disputed the validity of the assignment under German law.

The court, relying on uncontradicted expert evidence regarding German law, found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove a valid assignment, including bilateral execution, clear identification of the assigned claim, proof of signatory authority, and proper notice to the debtors.

The court determined there was a genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the motion for summary judgment, ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.

The plaintiffs, suppliers of automated assembly lines, sued the defendants for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract following the cancellation of a major auto sector project.

The plaintiffs alleged they relied on a comfort letter from the defendants regarding project financing and that a subsequent oral agreement was made for the defendants to assume the debt.

The court dismissed the claims, finding the comfort letter was not misleading and reliance on it was unreasonable given the plaintiffs' own deceptive request.

The court also found no evidence of the alleged oral agreement and held that any such claim would be barred by the Limitations Act and the Statute of Frauds.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to discharge a mortgage registered against his property, alleging that the defendant mortgagee never advanced the funds.

The plaintiff also claimed against the lawyer who provided him with independent legal advice, alleging negligence.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding the mortgage discharge, finding that the conflicting evidence regarding the advance of funds required a trial.

The court granted the lawyer's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claim against him on the basis that it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and alternatively, that the lawyer did not breach his duty of care.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim arising from a mortgage given as security for the assignment of another mortgage.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant made misrepresentations about encumbrances on the underlying property and that the agreement did not reflect what was promised.

The court held that the alleged subsequent encumbrances did not materially affect the plaintiffs’ priority or interest, and therefore could not constitute actionable misrepresentations.

The court also found that the handwritten agreement and related oral representations merged into the registered mortgage and that the involvement of independent counsel defeated any non est factum argument.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted summary judgment on the counterclaim.

The moving party law firm brought a motion for directions, seeking payment of its solicitor's accounts from the Estate and the removal of the estate trustee.

The law firm argued it was retained by the Estate or, alternatively, was entitled to compensation on a quantum meruit basis for acting as a 'lawyer of necessity'.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Estate had terminated its retainer with the law firm in 2009 and never re-retained it.

The court also held that the law firm lacked standing under Rules 74 and 75 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 50 of the Estates Act because it was not a creditor and had no financial interest in the Estate.

The quantum meruit claim failed as the services were not requested or acquiesced to by the Estate, and there was no basis to remove the estate trustee.

The appellant partnership appealed a trial judgment dismissing its action and awarding the respondent former partner damages on his counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's calculation of goodwill attributable to the respondent's capital account, his conclusion regarding the equity of subsidiaries, or his calculation of goodwill for retained clients.

A dispute arose following the termination of a partner’s membership in a law firm regarding amounts owing under a partnership agreement.

The issues concerned the proper calculation of the departing partner’s capital accounts, including goodwill and subsidiary equity, and the value of work in progress and accounts receivable assigned to the departing partner.

The court interpreted the partnership agreement to determine capital entitlements and the deductions applicable to assigned WIP and A/R. After calculating both parties’ entitlements and obligations and applying a limitation period concession, the court concluded that only half of the net amount owing to the departing partner was recoverable.

Judgment was granted for the defendant for the recoverable portion.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchasers for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The defendants argued there was an oral collateral agreement making the purchase conditional on financing.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the written agreement explicitly excluded collateral agreements and the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence of the alleged oral condition.

Summary judgment was granted, and the defendants were ordered to pay damages for the difference in the subsequent sale price and carrying costs, plus costs.

Following trial judgment awarding damages for breach of a software services agreement, the court determined prejudgment interest and costs.

The dispute concerned the appropriate start date for prejudgment interest and the reasonable quantum of partial indemnity costs.

The court held that prejudgment interest should run from the date the parties’ relationship effectively ended rather than the earlier project “go-live” date.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the plaintiff’s claimed legal fees by 10% while allowing disbursements in full.

Costs were fixed at $58,103.68 and prejudgment interest ordered at 1.3% from November 28, 2008.

The plaintiff purchased software from the defendant, who represented that the customer relationship management (CRM) and enterprise resource planning (ERP) modules would fully integrate.

The software failed to integrate due to character limitations and suffered from other functional defects.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the Sale of Goods Act.

The court found the individual defendant personally liable, as he had not contracted through his corporation.

The court held the defendant liable for negligent misrepresentation and breach of warranty, assessing the residual value of the defective software at 33.33% and awarding the plaintiff $126,932.35 in damages.