Iris Antonios

A case management conference was held to address amendments to the discovery timetable and issues arising from the recent production of approximately 4,000 documents by the defendant.

On consent, the court amended the discovery timetable while maintaining the existing expert report timetable.

The conference was adjourned to allow the defendant to investigate and clarify which of the recently produced documents were new versus already produced.

A case management conference was held to review the progress of the action.

The parties reported compliance with several steps in the established timetable, including the delivery of pleadings, supplementary affidavits of documents, and written examination questions.

However, due to the volume and scope of the written questions, the parties requested an adjournment to assess the time needed to respond.

The court adjourned the conference to allow the parties to confer and propose a variation to the timetable.

The 12th Case Management Conference addressed the timetable for expert reports and pleading amendments in a complex Indigenous litigation.

The Plaintiff sought a simultaneous exchange of expert reports, arguing for procedural reciprocity and efficiency.

The Defendants advocated for a sequential timetable, asserting it would allow them to better understand and respond to the Plaintiff's case, aligning with common practice in similar complex litigation.

The court adopted the Defendants' sequential timetable for expert reports, finding no basis to deviate from established practice in complex land claims.

The court also granted leave for the Plaintiff to amend its Statement of Claim, with the formal filing deferred due to COVID-19 court closures.

The 11th Case Management Conference addressed the trial process and timetable for a complex action involving historic evidence.

The parties agreed to a bifurcated trial but disagreed on the degree of bifurcation.

The plaintiff proposed a four-phase structure (two liability, two remedies/crossclaims), while the defendants proposed a two-phase structure (all liability in Phase 1, all remedies/crossclaims in Phase 2).

The court adopted the two-phase structure, finding it more efficient and less prone to inconsistencies, while reserving the right for parties to seek further refinement at the pre-trial stage.

A detailed timetable for pleadings, discovery, and documentary production was also established to keep the action on track for a 2022 trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion to proceed with examinations for discovery in the main action separately from the third party claim.

The main action involved allegations of negligence against environmental consultants for failing to identify contamination prior to the plaintiff's purchase of the property.

One defendant issued a third party claim against previous owners, causing significant delays in scheduling discoveries.

The court granted the motion, finding no overlap in liability issues between the main and third party claims, and held that the plaintiff should not be prejudiced by further delays caused by the third party proceedings.

The appellant general contractor appealed an order reducing the security required to bond its construction liens off title from over $32 million to approximately $13.8 million.

The Divisional Court first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, holding that an order reducing lien security under section 44(2) of the Construction Lien Act is a final order, not interlocutory.

On the merits, the court upheld the motions judge's finding that the appellant improperly calculated its lien claim on a 'costs plus' basis despite having a fixed price contract.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The defendants, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario, sought costs on a partial indemnity scale after successfully dismissing the plaintiff's action against the Assembly for lack of jurisdiction and striking out the plaintiff's statement of claim against the Ombudsman for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court awarded the Legislative Assembly $49,983.67 and the Ombudsman $18,551.81, finding their initial claims for costs to be excessive but acknowledging the legal complexity and importance of the motions.

The plaintiff's financial circumstances were considered but not determinative in the costs award.

The plaintiffs moved to remove estate trustees and spousal trust trustees, and for a receiver over a holding company, alleging misconduct and oppression.

The defendants cross-moved to dismiss the action for delay and for security for costs.

The court dismissed the motions to remove trustees and appoint a receiver, finding sufficient assets secured the plaintiffs' interests and no corporate oppression.

The court also dismissed the defendants' motion to dismiss for delay against the remaining plaintiff, Leslie Barker, but ordered her to post security for costs as a non-resident.

The plaintiff, a former Ombudsman of Ontario, commenced an action against the Office of the Ombudsman and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, seeking declaratory relief and damages for wrongful dismissal and negligent misrepresentation.

The Office of the Ombudsman moved to strike the statement of claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action as the Office is a statutory position, not a legal entity capable of an employment contract with the Ombudsman.

The Legislative Assembly moved to dismiss or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction, asserting parliamentary privilege over the appointment and management of parliamentary officers.

The court granted both motions, finding that the Office of the Ombudsman is not a separate legal entity capable of employing the Ombudsman, and that the Assembly's decisions regarding the appointment and non-reappointment of a parliamentary officer are protected by parliamentary privilege, thus falling outside the court's jurisdiction.

The applicant, HMI, brought a motion to refer a consolidated construction lien action, involving seventeen liens totaling over $42 million, to a single private arbitration and to stay the court proceedings.

The consolidated action was divided into three streams (A, B, C) based on contractual relationships.

The motion was opposed by various lien claimants and other parties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a consolidated arbitration could not be ordered due to significant conflicts in arbitration clauses across the different contracts, the inclusion of third parties who had not consented to arbitration, the failure to follow contractual dispute resolution protocols (including mediation), and potential for increased costs and delays for some parties.

The court emphasized the consensual nature of arbitration and declined to impose non-consensual amendments to contracts or stay the court action.

Two mining companies disputed access to chromite deposits in northern Ontario.

The respondent sought an easement over the appellant's unpatented mining claims to build a road.

The Mining and Lands Commissioner refused to dispense with the appellant's consent, interpreting the Mining Act as granting broad surface rights to unpatented claim holders on Crown land.

The Divisional Court overturned this, finding the interpretation unreasonable and dispensing with consent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, confirming that surface rights are limited to what is necessary for mining activities on the claims themselves, and there was no evidence the road would interfere with such activities.

The appellant sought an easement over Crown lands subject to unpatented mining claims held by the respondent to build a road to a proposed mine.

The respondent refused consent, intending to build a railway on the same corridor.

The Mining and Lands Commissioner (MLC) dismissed the appellant's application to dispense with consent.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the MLC's decision unreasonable, as it misinterpreted the Mining Act by failing to apply the limitations on surface rights to unpatented claims on Crown land and improperly required the appellant to prove a public interest.

The Court substituted its own decision, dispensing with the respondent's consent, finding no evidence that the road would significantly interfere with actual or proposed mining activities on the claims.

The respondent Moose Cree First Nation brought a motion to strike portions of a judicial review application and supporting affidavit filed by the MoCreebec Council of the Cree Nation regarding a hydroelectric project.

The parties resolved several issues, including the removal of Charter and Aboriginal rights claims.

The court deferred a decision on striking hearsay evidence in the affidavit pending further information.

Given the complexity and public policy implications, the court referred the remaining issue of the applicant's capacity to bring the application to a full panel of the Divisional Court.