Harvey S. Dorsey

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against its former president and sole director, alleging he engaged in a fraudulent scheme involving excessive or non-existent expenses and forged signatures.

The plaintiff relied heavily on a forensic accountant's report, but failed to provide direct evidence from individuals with knowledge of the facts underlying the accountant's assumptions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff's evidentiary record insufficient to establish that there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the alleged misrepresentations and fraud.

The applicant, LawPRO, paid a joint and several costs award in full on behalf of its insured and sought contribution from the respondent co-debtors.

One respondent filed a proposal in bankruptcy and another was judgment-proof.

LawPRO sought an order that the remaining solvent respondent, Ida, pay an equal share of the insolvent respondents' shortfall.

The court held that LawPRO had standing to seek contribution and applied the equitable principle that solvent co-debtors must rateably share the shortfall of insolvent co-debtors.

Ida was ordered to pay a rateable share of the shortfall in addition to her apportioned share of the costs award.

The parties disagreed over the form of the formal Judgment arising from previous decisions.

The applicants sought to include specific recitals of all materials filed, while the respondent argued that Form 59B does not require particulars of evidence for applications.

The court approved the applicants' draft Judgment, finding no harm and potential benefit in providing specificity, especially given the context of an ongoing arbitration.

A case conference was held to establish a timetable for an upcoming motion for summary judgment.

The court endorsed the schedule agreed to by all counsel, setting deadlines for the delivery of materials, cross-examinations, and factums.

The plaintiffs had a pending motion to validate service of their statement of claim on one defendant and to extend the time for service on another.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the claim was statute-barred and failed to plead valid causes of action, and brought a motion under Rule 39.03 to examine the plaintiffs prior to the hearing.

The Master granted the motion in part, permitting the defendants to examine the plaintiffs on issues relevant to the limitation period defence, but refusing examination on the factual basis of the pleaded causes of action, as the latter is a pleadings test rather than an evidentiary one.

This supplementary costs endorsement clarifies a previous Costs Order dated December 5, 2018.

The defendants requested clarification, while the plaintiffs argued the court was functus officio.

The court rejected the functus officio argument, affirming its jurisdiction to amend the order to correct an omission in expressing its manifest intention.

The clarification specifically addresses the apportionment of costs, confirming that one defendant is to pay 25% of the balance of the plaintiffs' costs, after a third party pays their 25%.

The defendants moved for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1), alleging insufficient assets in Ontario.

The plaintiff, while not claiming impecuniosity, argued that its financial state was caused by the defendants' alleged wrongful conduct and that its claim had a good chance of success.

The court found the merits of the case to be neutral for the purpose of the motion and determined that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate insufficient assets to post security.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post security for incurred costs and future discovery costs.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order to exclude co-defendants from attending each other's examinations for discovery or reviewing their transcripts, arguing it was necessary to prevent the tailoring of evidence, particularly given the anticipated credibility issues.

The court considered factors such as common interests, common counsel, the scope of examinations, and the centrality of credibility.

While acknowledging credibility would be an issue, the court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real and substantial probability that the discovery process would be compromised.

This was especially true given that two key defendants had already been extensively cross-examined on substantive affidavits without any evidence of tailoring or parroting, and their co-parties had access to these transcripts.

The motion for an exclusion order was dismissed, and the defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment to enforce a foreign arbitration award.

The defendant raised multiple genuine issues requiring trial, including the validity of the arbitration, set-off, scope of arbitration, and identity of the contracting party.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the cautions against partial summary judgment articulated in Hryniak and Butera, noting the risk of inconsistent findings, delay, increased costs, and wasted judicial resources, as the motion would not dispose of the entire action and many issues would remain for trial.

The applicants sought to enforce letters of request issued by a Pennsylvania court against the respondents (Royal Bank of Canada, Peter Gordon, and Minden Gross LLP) to obtain documents and information for a civil action in Pennsylvania.

The court granted the application, finding that the evidence sought was relevant, necessary for trial (including pre-trial proceedings), not otherwise obtainable, identified with reasonable specificity, not contrary to public policy, and not unduly burdensome.

The court emphasized deference to the requesting court's findings and rejected arguments regarding pre-trial use and solicitor-client privilege.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, the successful plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court declined to award elevated costs due to the plaintiff's prior misconduct involving a purported wire transfer that was never actually sent.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed costs at $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable to the plaintiff in any event of the cause.

The Grad defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and false imprisonment against them.

The claims arose after the Grad defendants reported the plaintiff to the police over a contract dispute, leading to criminal charges that were later withdrawn.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that a full trial was necessary to assess the defendants' motives and to avoid the risk of duplicative proceedings or inconsistent findings of fact, as the claims against the co-defendant police officers would proceed to trial in any event.

The defendant, a dissolved corporation, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a Russian corporation with no assets in Ontario.

The court applied the two-step analysis under Rule 56.01 and found the defendant met the initial burden.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that an order for security would be unjust, as the merits of the complex case were deemed neutral and the defendant's dissolved status did not preclude the order.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post $25,000 in installments up to the pending summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for the unpaid balance of the purchase price of a property in Iran.

The defendant argued that payment was conditional on clearing a cloud on title and, alternatively, that the claim was statute-barred.

The court found no evidence of the alleged condition and held that the limitation period was extended under s. 11 of the Limitations Act because the parties had engaged a third party (the Baha'i National Spiritual Assembly) to assist in resolving the dispute.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the balance owing, converted to Canadian dollars on specific dates.

The plaintiff was unsuccessful on a motion for summary judgment.

The successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the plaintiff's conduct in bringing the motion was unreasonable.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the conduct did not justify such an award.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $43,777.33.

The applicant, operating a restolounge, sought an interim injunction to restrain its landlord from leasing space in the same building to a proposed Mediterranean restaurant, relying on an exclusionary clause in its lease.

The applicant argued the new restaurant would operate a similar business and serve alcohol, causing a loss of business.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried but dismissed the application because the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages.

The defendant municipality moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff contractor's claim for additional construction fees, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiff argued that the limitation period was tolled by promissory estoppel due to ongoing negotiations.

The court found that the cause of action was discovered by January 2010 at the latest, when formal default notices were exchanged, and that the defendant made no representation to forgo its limitation period rights.

The motion was granted and the claim for additional fees was dismissed as statute-barred.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to stay the respondents' application in favour of arbitration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants failed to request arbitration before submitting their first statement on the substance of the dispute, as required by Article 8(1) of the Model Law.

The court also noted that referring the matter to arbitration would result in a multiplicity of proceedings, as only one issue involving a dormant appellant would be subject to arbitration, while the remaining issues involving non-parties would require a court application.

This was a costs endorsement following a motion in which the plaintiff and receiver obtained approval of the sale of the business in dispute and a stay of the defendants' summary judgment motion.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized the plaintiff's substantial success, the importance of the issues, the efficiency of counsel's time, and the defendants' conduct in unnecessarily lengthening the proceeding.

The court also noted repeated delay by defence counsel and gave no weight to the late costs submissions.

Costs were fixed at $7,341.49 payable by the personal defendants to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff shareholder brought a motion in a dispute between equal shareholders of a corporation operating a convenience store, seeking permission to sell the business, appointment of a receiver to supervise the sale, forfeiture of a $25,000 deposit under a prior court order, and an order striking the defendant’s statement of defence.

The court denied an adjournment request by the responding shareholder and accepted the recommendation of the court‑appointed monitor that the business be sold promptly to avoid further litigation expenses.

A receiver was appointed to conduct the sale and supervise operations, with the moving party permitted to control day‑to‑day business activities subject to cooperation with the receiver.

The court also ordered forfeiture of the $25,000 deposit in accordance with an earlier order.

However, the request to strike the defendant’s defence was refused given the defendant’s circumstances abroad and the expectation that issues could be addressed upon distribution of sale proceeds.