Gary Boyd

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim following the death of the original plaintiff, a resident of a retirement home who was allegedly assaulted by a staff member.

The defendants opposed amendments adding claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of statutes, arguing they were statute-barred or pleaded evidence.

The court granted leave to amend, finding the new claims were either not new causes of action or potentially saved by the lack of a limitation period for assault where dependency exists, though one paragraph pleading evidence of a fine was struck.

The court-appointed Receiver and certain plaintiffs brought motions to interpret or amend a 2017 costs order made by Justice Kane.

The costs order, as drafted, appeared to make Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 396 (CCC 396) jointly and severally liable with the Burdet Group defendants to pay $410,000 in costs to the plaintiffs.

However, the same order also awarded CCC 396 $220,000 in costs payable by the plaintiffs.

The court found that the costs order contained an accidental omission and was inconsistent with Justice Kane's written costs decision.

Applying Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court amended the costs order to explicitly exclude CCC 396 from the defendants liable to pay costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff appealed an Associate Judge's order dismissing its motion for a protective order over the production of its financial statements to the defendants, who are direct competitors.

The plaintiff sought to limit disclosure to 'counsel's eyes only', arguing the statements contained confidential and commercially sensitive information.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge did not err in concluding the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real and substantial risk of serious financial harm.

A motion to adduce fresh evidence was also dismissed as the proposed evidence would not be conclusive of the issue on appeal.

The moving party sought costs following a successful motion to be appointed as her husband's litigation guardian.

She sought substantial indemnity costs against two respondents due to their counsel's failure to communicate, and partial indemnity costs against the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) for opposing the motion.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs against the respondents, finding their counsel's conduct unprofessional but not warranting an elevated scale.

The court also awarded partial indemnity costs against the PGT, rejecting its argument for presumptive immunity as a statutory agency and finding it had pursued meritless arguments.

The moving party sought to be appointed as the litigation guardian for her husband, whose capacity was at issue in a proceeding challenging the validity of powers of attorney and wills.

The Public Guardian and Trustee opposed the appointment, arguing that section 3 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 rendered a litigation guardian unnecessary.

The court held that section 3 counsel and a litigation guardian serve complementary roles, and that appointing a litigation guardian was appropriate to safeguard the husband's legal interests.

The moving party was appointed as litigation guardian, as she had no disqualifying conflict of interest.

The minority unit owners of a commercial condominium brought an action against the majority unit owner, who also served as a director and officer, alleging oppressive conduct under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The majority owner used his voting control to direct condominium contracts and payments to a related corporation, ETRE, without declaring his conflict of interest, and charged the condominium for personal litigation and construction costs.

The court found the majority owner's conduct to be oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, and in breach of his fiduciary duties.

Due to the structural fault in the condominium's voting rights and the ongoing deadlock, the court ordered the termination of the condominium corporation under s. 128 and appointed a receiver to sell the assets.

The court also resolved various financial claims, ordering the minority to pay common expense arrears while dismissing most of the majority owner's claims for penalty charges, promissory notes, and time charges.

During a case conference concerning an anticipated motion for summary judgment, the moving parties had previously scheduled a hearing date but faced objections from the responding parties, who indicated they intended to bring cross-motions and anticipated a possible appeal.

At the conference convened to determine whether the motion would proceed, the moving parties advised the court that they would not proceed with the summary judgment motion in light of those objections.

The court also addressed trial management matters, confirming that the presiding judge for the conference was scheduled to act as the trial judge for the upcoming trial.

One responding party indicated it would seek instructions regarding that arrangement.

At a case conference prior to a scheduled civil trial, the court addressed whether issues relating to condominium fee arrears owed by certain unit owner plaintiffs to the condominium corporation would fall within the scope of the upcoming trial.

The pleadings raised the validity and amount of arrears, including fees, penalties, charges, and interest for a lengthy historical period.

The parties confirmed that the trial judge would have jurisdiction to determine the validity and quantum of any arrears and to award judgment in favour of the condominium corporation against the relevant unit owners.

No party opposed inclusion of these issues in the trial.

The court directed that the identified matters form part of the trial issues to be determined.

The plaintiffs and the court-appointed Administrator brought motions to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing the action.

The defendant had obtained the dismissal order ex parte on December 31, 2012, relying on a prior endorsement that required the action to be set down by December 29, 2012.

However, the defendant failed to disclose to the Registrar that the court had subsequently extended the deadline to February 28, 2013.

The court found that the defendant's failure to disclose the extension constituted a material misstatement and that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the action.

The dismissal order was set aside, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the moving parties.