Isabella Massimi

The applicants brought a motion for contempt against a respondent who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant and permanently enjoined from communicating with or publishing commentary about the applicants.

The applicants filed extensive electronic materials demonstrating continued communications and publications alleging misconduct and bribery by judges and law enforcement officials involved in the earlier proceedings.

The court considered whether the respondent’s conduct was intentional and whether mental health issues might affect her ability to form the requisite intent for contempt.

Pursuant to s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court ordered a psychiatric assessment before determining liability and sentencing.

Costs were reserved pending completion of the assessment.

In a guardianship application under the Substitute Decisions Act concerning the alleged incapacity of an elderly business owner, the applicant sought an order sealing the court file.

Corporate respondents involved in related automotive businesses also sought a confidentiality order allowing them to file documents with the court without disclosing them to certain co‑respondents, or alternatively an “eyes‑only” order limiting disclosure to counsel.

The court held that a sealing order was appropriate under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act given the sensitive medical, personal, and commercial information involved.

However, the requested confidentiality order preventing disclosure to opposing parties was rejected as contrary to fundamental principles of civil procedure and natural justice.

The court instead extended the deemed undertaking rule to protect confidential information while maintaining ordinary disclosure obligations between parties.

Following the dismissal of a summary judgment motion concerning unpaid invoices and an equitable counterclaim, the court determined the appropriate costs order.

The responding party sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $36,000.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs under Rule 20.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure require unreasonable conduct or bad faith, neither of which was established.

Given that the summary judgment motion had merit and was described as a close call, the court ordered that costs be in the cause and fixed them at $12,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff helicopter services provider brought a motion for summary judgment to recover unpaid invoices under a services agreement for helicopter transportation at a remote mining exploration site.

The defendant mining company disputed portions of the invoiced charges and asserted a counterclaim alleging damages arising from the conduct of a pilot, including events affecting relations with a local community and allegedly unnecessary flight charges.

The court considered Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the “full appreciation” test from Combined Air Mechanical v. Flesch.

The court held that the factual disputes, including credibility issues and the potential application of equitable set‑off, were sufficiently intertwined with the plaintiff’s claim that they required resolution at trial.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.