G.E. Taylor J.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for specific performance of a condominium purchase agreement on a motion for summary judgment, the court determined the costs payable to the successful defendant.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs but submitted a bill calculated on a substantial indemnity basis for approximately $47,750.

The plaintiff argued for no costs or a nominal award of $5,000, citing his real estate lawyer's failure to advise him of a demand letter.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument, noting that issues with his lawyer should not affect the successful defendant's entitlement to costs.

Applying the principles of indemnity and reasonable expectations under Rule 57.01, the court fixed the defendant's costs at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' medical malpractice action as statute-barred.

The plaintiff, a diabetic, received foot care from the defendant chiropodist and later required a leg amputation due to Charcot foot.

The defendants argued the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the claim by the date of amputation.

The plaintiff argued the claim was not discovered until receiving a medical expert report linking the amputation to the defendant's substandard care.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding when the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the facts necessary to discover the negligence claim.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct, specifically statements made 20 to 30 years prior expressing urges to harm homosexual men, to prove motive in a first-degree murder trial.

The court applied the Handy test for similar fact evidence and ruled the historical statements inadmissible, finding that their probative value was diminished by the passage of time and lack of action, while the risk of moral and reasoning prejudice was significant.

However, more recent statements made by the accused in 2014 were ruled admissible as they were proximate in time and relevant to intent.

The applicants were successful at trial in having a notice filed under section 71 of the Land Titles Act removed from title to certain real property.

The applicants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the respondents acted unreasonably by registering and refusing to remove the notice.

The court found the respondents did not act unreasonably, but merely took an incorrect position, and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The court fixed the applicants' costs at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, considering the importance of the matter, the lack of jurisprudence on section 71, and the comparative costs outlines.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PG&T) applied to confirm its refusal to issue a Certificate of Statutory Guardianship to the respondent for her sister's property.

The respondent had applied to replace the PG&T, but was rejected due to her lack of understanding of the role, history of making unfounded allegations, and fixation on attacking her late brother-in-law's will.

The court found that the respondent's obsession with the will and irrational beliefs about other family members would prevent her from objectively managing the property and fostering regular personal contact with family members as required by the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court confirmed the PG&T's refusal.

The plaintiff sought certification of a securities class action asserting statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims, common law negligent misrepresentation, and oppression.

The court applied the certification criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and held that a global class was appropriate for the statutory and oppression claims, and also for negligent misrepresentation, but only insofar as that claim overlapped with the misrepresentations for which leave had already been granted under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act.

Relying on appellate authority, the court refused to certify common issues based on inferred reliance and aggregate damages for negligent misrepresentation.

The court concluded that certification of all three causes of action in a single class proceeding was the preferable procedure, subject to narrowing the negligent misrepresentation claim.