Associate Judge Gillian Eckler

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an anonymity order and for court documents to be redacted to remove identifying information.

The mother, Jane Doe, feared for her safety and that of her minor son due to past threats and harassment from an ex-partner.

Applying the Sherman Estate test, the court found that the public interest in protecting personal physical safety, personal privacy, and the identities of minor litigants justified a departure from the open court principle.

The motion was granted, permitting the use of pseudonyms and ordering the redaction of identifying information from public documents.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time for service of a statement of claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The statement of claim was issued in October 2019 but not served until October 2024, nearly four years after the deadline.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate explanation for the extensive delay, which involved multiple changes in legal representation and a deliberate decision not to serve the claim in 2023.

The court also found that the defendant would suffer significant prejudice due to faded memories, lost evidence, and the inability to conduct timely medical assessments.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

The defendants, a father and his common-law partner, brought motions to set aside an ex parte order granting the plaintiff son leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against their property, and to discharge the CPL.

The father also sought leave to register a CPL against a property he had previously transferred to the son.

The court set aside the ex parte order and discharged the CPL on the defendants' property, finding the son failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts and had no triable claim to an interest in the land.

The court granted the father leave to register a CPL against the son's property, finding a triable issue of a resulting trust arising from the gratuitous transfer.

In a costs endorsement following a security-for-costs motion, the court considered competing claims under Rules 49.10 and 49.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The responding parties argued their settlement offers attracted mandatory costs consequences, while the moving party sought full partial-indemnity costs as successful party.

The court held the offers were not equivalent or more favourable than the prior order and therefore did not trigger Rule 49.10, but gave them weight under Rule 49.13.

Given divided success and proportionality, the court reduced the amount claimed and fixed costs payable to the moving party.

The plaintiff, Shelley Brown, brought a motion to compel the defendant, Security National Insurance Company, to produce a second representative from its Product Department for a further examination for discovery, and to answer certain refusals from a prior discovery.

The motion arose from a dispute over an insurance claim following the theft of Brown’s vehicle and the handling of her claim under a discontinued 5-Year Replacement Cost Solution endorsement.

The court found that the criteria for ordering a further examination were not met, as the existing representative had provided undertakings and the answers sought could be obtained without undue expense or inconvenience.

The motion was dismissed.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, 1 Royal Gate Village Properties Ltd., failed to provide a reasonable explanation for an almost eight-year delay in prosecuting its claim against CCI Group Inc. regarding an allegedly deficient property condition assessment.

The court found that explanations based on alleged bankruptcy representations, the COVID-19 pandemic, and financial constraints were not sufficient.

The court also found that the defendant would suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded, including the death of key witnesses, faded memories, and the inability to inspect the property due to remedial work.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

This costs endorsement addresses the aftermath of a motion to strike the defendants’ statement of defence for failure to attend examinations for discovery.

The court had previously dismissed the motion to strike but awarded the plaintiffs partial costs thrown away.

The parties could not agree on costs, and both made written submissions.

The court ultimately found that, given the divided result and the defendants’ prior waiver of costs, each party should bear its own costs of the motion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence and for costs thrown away after the defendants failed to attend scheduled examinations for discovery.

The court found that the defendants' non-attendance was due to their former counsel's inadvertent misunderstanding of the schedule, rather than a deliberate flouting of a court order.

The motion to strike was dismissed, as the draconian remedy was not warranted and the defendants offered to cure the default.

However, the court awarded the plaintiffs $15,823.77 in costs thrown away for the wasted preparation time and disbursements related to the missed examinations.

The plaintiff, Michael Cirone, brought a motion to compel the defendant, Ian Morris, to answer questions taken under advisement at his examination for discovery and to attend a further examination for discovery.

The motion sought production of all bank statements for the firm's Canadian and U.S. Trust Accounts from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, and further discovery arising from these productions.

The defendants opposed on grounds of relevance and solicitor-client privilege, arguing that the trust accounts were not partnership property and that the plaintiff had withdrawn allegations of fraud.

The court found the trust account statements relevant under sections 28 and 29 of the Partnership Act, as they contained information affecting the partnership and were linked to partnership business.

The court also rejected the solicitor-client privilege claim, noting the plaintiff was a former partner entitled to such information.

The motion was granted, compelling production of the trust account statements and ordering a further examination for discovery.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 34.10 for the disclosure of documents referenced in an affidavit sworn by a non-party, and to compel answers to questions refused during the non-party's cross-examination.

The requested documents were a subset of those sought in an underlying, pending Rule 30.10 motion for non-party production.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that ordering production at this stage would interfere with the orderly progress of the action, risk inconsistent findings with the pending Rule 30.10 motion, and disturb the fairness of the procedure for seeking non-party productions.

The defendant brought a motion seeking reimbursement for a $3,371.92 cancellation fee incurred due to the plaintiff's last-minute failure to attend a defence medical assessment.

The plaintiff cancelled 38 minutes prior to the appointment, citing illness, supported by a non-contemporaneous medical note.

The court found the examination was properly constituted under Rule 33 and the possibility of a cancellation fee was communicated.

However, the plaintiff's reason for cancellation lacked sufficient evidentiary support, and the original cancellation fee was deemed excessive for a half-day assessment.

The court granted the motion in part, reducing the payable cancellation fee to $1,507.42 and ordering the plaintiff to pay $1,500 in costs to the defendant.

The defendant, Northbridge General Insurance Corporation, brought a motion seeking leave to amend its statement of defence to withdraw an admission that it insured the loss vehicle.

The court granted the motion, applying the three-part test for withdrawing an admission.

It found that the proposed amendment raised a triable issue, the admission was inadvertent due to time constraints and incomplete investigation, and the withdrawal would not result in non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff, Nissan Canada Inc., as Nissan was aware of Northbridge's denial of coverage well before the limitation period expired to sue other parties.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC), a judgment creditor of Vadim Tsatskin, brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a property solely owned by Tsatskin's spouse, Irene Bromberg.

The OSC alleged that Bromberg held a beneficial interest in the property in trust for Tsatskin, who had orchestrated a scheme to hide assets and avoid payment of a $5.3 million debt from fraudulent investment schemes.

Bromberg opposed, citing clean hands, delay, and prejudice.

The court granted the CPL, finding a triable issue for a resulting or constructive trust and that the equities favored the OSC, given the significant dissipation risk posed by Tsatskin's fraudulent history and the lack of substantiated prejudice from Bromberg.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to outstanding discovery undertakings and refusals, and for a third examination of the defendant's representative.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for non-compliance with undertakings or, alternatively, to compel answers to their outstanding refusals.

Most undertakings were resolved by consent, and the jury notice was struck by agreement.

The court ruled on the remaining discovery refusals for both parties, ordering the defendant to provide an employee's employment file and information from a former employee regarding inspections, and ordering the plaintiff to provide information on other personal injury lawsuits and colour photos of footwear.

The plaintiff's request for a third examination was dismissed, with the court emphasizing proportionality in simplified procedure actions.

No costs were awarded to either party due to the mixed success and the nature of simplified procedure.

This decision addresses a motion for costs brought by self-represented defendants, Michael Malouf and his companies, after the plaintiff, Ginoogaming First Nation, discontinued its action against them.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the plaintiff's action against them was frivolous.

The court found the plaintiff's initial action was bona fide and not vexatious, and that there was no reprehensible conduct to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

Applying principles for self-represented litigants, the court rejected the defendants' claimed hourly rate and excessive hours, finding only a modest unquantified lost opportunity cost.

The court awarded a lump sum for lost opportunity costs related to preparing the statement of defence and a change of venue motion, excluding costs already dealt with in previous injunction motions and work done after the notice of discontinuance.