Grant R. Dow

The applicant insurance company brought an application to the Superior Court seeking an order to compel the production of records from non-parties for an ongoing License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) proceeding regarding statutory accident benefits.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the LAT has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes for statutory automobile accident benefits under section 280 of the Insurance Act.

The proper forum to address non-compliance with production orders is at the LAT hearing.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff law firm brought an in-writing motion for default judgment against the defendant for an unpaid invoice.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding the motion record deficient.

The court noted issues with improper service by mail instead of personal service, failure to include the underlying invoice, incorrect pre-judgment interest calculations, and failure to address why costs should not be restricted under Rule 57.05 given the claim fell within Small Claims Court jurisdiction.

The plaintiff brought an action for breach of contract, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment against the defendants for failing to deliver seven luxury watches purchased for $141,500 USD and failing to remit proceeds from three consigned handbags valued at $61,000 USD.

The defendants, who were self-represented, failed to respond to a Request to Admit and sought an adjournment at trial which was denied as the matter was peremptory.

The court granted judgment against both defendants jointly and severally for the Canadian equivalent of $194,500 USD, with prejudgment and postjudgment interest, but dismissed the claim for punitive damages.

Costs were deferred to the judicial official who determines the outstanding counterclaim.

This is a costs decision following a summary trial in which the plaintiff's action for 50 percent of the defendant's $301,000 casino jackpot winnings was dismissed.

The action was based on alleged breach of an oral contract, breach of trust, and unjust enrichment.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $79,750.65, while the plaintiff argued for a reduced award of $25,000.

The court awarded the defendant $40,773.84 in costs, considering factors including the nature of the dispute, the use of two counsel, conduct issues involving a witness, and the principle that costs awards should be fair and reasonable rather than blindly reflecting actual costs incurred.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment on a mortgage shortfall claim against the defendant following the defendant's default on mortgage payments beginning in November 2023.

The defendant owned a four-unit apartment building that was subject to a first mortgage of approximately $1.5 million and a second mortgage of $180,000 held by the plaintiff.

After the defendant failed to make payments, the plaintiff made payments to the first mortgagee, obtained possession, and sold the property under power of sale for $1.935 million.

The sale proceeds, after deducting the first mortgage, expenses, and other costs, resulted in a shortfall of $118,325.92.

The defendant opposed the summary judgment motion, challenging the quantum and raising unsubstantiated allegations of intentional value depression.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment between Kishan Patel (and his company TechSpirer Inc.) and ITCAD Tech Inc. regarding unpaid invoices and the enforceability of a non-competition clause in a consulting agreement.

The court found that TechSpirer Inc. was an independent contractor, not an employee, and that the non-competition clause was valid and enforceable.

Damages were awarded to both parties, with the plaintiffs receiving unpaid invoices and punitive damages, and the defendant receiving partial damages for breach of the non-compete.

The court also addressed issues of frustration, repudiation, and costs.

The plaintiff, Haytham Elzayat, brought a civil action against the Toronto Police Services Board for alleged misconduct arising from his arrests and charges for assault on October 17, 2016, and April 15, 2017.

The court found that the police officers involved acted reasonably and met the required standard of care in their investigations and arrests.

The court dismissed all claims, including those for negligent investigation, breach of Charter rights, and discrimination, and found no evidence to support the plaintiff’s allegations.

The court also addressed the limitation period and assessed damages that would have been awarded had the claim succeeded, ultimately awarding costs to the defendant.

The plaintiffs, Avante Automobile (2017) Corporation and Francesco Serpa, sought damages from BMW Canada Inc. for breach of statutory, contractual, and common law duties in relation to the purchase and operation of a BMW dealership.

The court found BMW Canada liable for failing to properly document an extension to complete required renovations and for not following the termination provisions of the Retailer Agreement.

However, the court preferred the defendant’s evidence on valuation and found no net recoverable damages.

The action was dismissed, subject to costs.

The court considered costs following a mixed-success application under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

Although the applicants were awarded monetary relief, they failed on significant claims, including a request for 45% ownership and profits of the respondent corporation.

The court found success was divided and ordered each party to bear their own costs, referencing relevant offers to settle and prior case law on divided success.

The City of Toronto sought partial summary judgment to dismiss the action against it, relying on section 42(4)(b) of the City of Toronto Act, which bars actions for damages caused by the condition of an "untravelled portion of a highway." The court found that the area where the plaintiff was injured was not intended for ordinary or normal use, nor commonly or additionally used by the public, and therefore fell within the statutory bar.

The action against the City of Toronto was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the City.

The plaintiff, Toronto-Dominion Bank, sought summary judgment against Michael D’Cruz and Rosalind D’Cruz to set aside a $94,000 payment made by Michael to Rosalind in February 2022, shortly before Michael’s bankruptcy.

The court found that the payment constituted a preference under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and was void under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, as it gave Rosalind preferential treatment over other creditors.

The court granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $94,000 and provided directions for costs.

The applicants sought relief under the Ontario Business Corporations Act for payment of 45 percent of the value of PowerNorth Utility Contractors Inc., arising from previous business dealings.

The court found that the applicants were proper complainants under the Act and entitled to remedies, including repayment of investments and services provided.

The court calculated the amounts owed for cash investment, use of premises, equipment, and services, and awarded interest.

The total award was $399,441.90.

The court declined to order a share of profits and urged the parties to agree on costs, noting divided success.

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion for default judgment.

The court found that the plaintiff had not sufficiently complied with a prior order regarding personal service of the motion record and statement of claim, nor had they provided adequate evidence of efforts to locate and serve the defendants (e.g., title search, license plate searches, skip tracer).

The motion was dismissed without prejudice, with revised dates for renewal upon compliance with the service requirements.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff contractor's defamation action.

The action arose from an email the defendant sent to his spouse expressing dissatisfaction with the plaintiff's renovation work.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the email was a private communication between spouses and did not constitute an expression on a matter of public interest.

No costs were awarded.

The defendant, Lloyd's Underwriters, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action by the plaintiff, 2689686 Ontario Inc., concerning a roof collapse at a property insured under a Builder's Risk policy.

The court found that the loss was caused by frost and heaving, a peril explicitly excluded by the policy.

The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the defendant's expert opinion or establish an exception to the exclusion.

Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action against Lloyd's Underwriters.

The plaintiff purchased three industrial units from the defendant, which were undergoing a delayed conversion into a condominium.

The plaintiff occupied the units under a one-year lease with zero base rent, which expired before the conversion was completed.

The defendant sought base rent for the overholding period from July 2017 to April 2022.

The court found no enforceable agreement for the $8,000 monthly base rent proposed by the defendant but awarded the defendant occupation rent based on unjust enrichment.

The court reduced the entitlement to 35 months due to the defendant's failure to issue invoices or notices, awarding $316,400 inclusive of HST.

The applicants and respondents entered into a business arrangement to open an optometry clinic, but failed to agree on final terms.

The applicant locked the respondent out of the business and ceased paying rent.

The court found the applicant's unilateral ouster of the respondent constituted oppression.

The applicant was ordered to repay the respondent's surplus capital contribution and the parties were directed to appoint an appraiser to determine fair market rent owed since the lockout.

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, brought a 16-page Notice of Application.

The City of Toronto, as the first named respondent, sought dismissal of the application under Rule 2.1.03.

The court found that the applicant failed to follow the required procedure for vexatious litigants to seek leave to proceed, as established by a prior order.

Citing previous decisions involving the same applicant, the court dismissed the application in its entirety and ordered the applicant to pay costs on a substantial indemnity basis to each respondent.

This case concerns the approval of a minor's statutory accident benefits settlement and the determination of legal fees.

The court approved an all-inclusive settlement of $678,400, with a significant portion structured into an annuity for the minor.

However, the court reduced the proposed 25% contingent fee sought by counsel, fixing it at $115,000 plus HST and disbursements, finding the contingent fee unreasonable at the time of the hearing despite the retainer agreement being reasonable when entered.

The decision emphasized the court's duty to ensure the settlement terms are in the best interests of the person under disability.

The plaintiff, Jodi L. Feldman Professional Corporation, sought costs following a successful trial against the defendant, Lynne Catherine Foulidis, for legal services rendered.

The trial assessed the value of services at $480,919.93.

The plaintiff sought $276,631.63 in costs, applying partial indemnity to an Offer to Settle date and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The defendant objected on grounds of reasonableness, proportionality, insufficient docket details, and an alleged agreement for summary trial costs limits.

The court largely agreed with the plaintiff's entitlement to costs but made reductions for excessive claims related to statement of claim drafting, a charging order motion, and mediation, ultimately fixing costs at $240,118.50 all-inclusive.