Ivan S. Bloom

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action as statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, concerning unpaid pension contributions.

The court found that the plaintiff ought to have known that litigation was an appropriate means to remedy her claim by October 27, 2011, given clear denials of liability from the defendant and the plaintiff's representation by counsel.

As the action was commenced on September 10, 2015, it was outside the two-year limitation period.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The Superior Court of Justice issued a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an action challenging a will.

The defendant, Constance McCron, sought substantial indemnity costs from the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs argued for costs from the estate or that each party bear their own.

The court applied the modern approach to estate litigation costs, noting that while the plaintiffs had reasonable grounds to question the will's validity (suspicious circumstances, testator's susceptibility), their claim was ultimately statute-barred.

The defendant's request for costs was denied due to her misleading evidence regarding the testator's mental state.

Ultimately, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The plaintiffs challenged the validity of Constantin Birtzu's 2006 will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by his daughter, Constance McCron, who was the sole beneficiary.

They also sought a constructive trust over property and an accounting of assets.

The court found the action statute-barred due to the expiration of the limitation period.

Despite this, the court proceeded to address the merits, finding that the defendants successfully proved testamentary capacity and that the plaintiffs failed to prove undue influence.

The court upheld the 2006 will and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment seeking an order for the sale of a property or a finding of constructive trust, alleging a fraudulent conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The motion was dismissed as the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court determined that a full evidentiary record was necessary to properly assess the flow of funds from a prior property sale, an alleged loan by one defendant to his parents (the other defendants), and its repayment, which were central to determining if valuable consideration was given and if the transaction was impeachable.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) and Rule 20 to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The action claimed against the defendants under the trust provisions of the Construction Lien Act for interest and costs, and was also challenged on the basis of a limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the legal question of whether interest and costs are covered by the CLA trust was unsettled and required a full factual record at trial.

Similarly, on the limitations issue, the court determined there was a genuine issue requiring trial, particularly concerning the "appropriate means" element of discoverability under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court considered costs following a successful motion by Hardath Singh, Ramkali Mohan, 1415006 Ontario Ltd., and Maple Leaf Wheelchair Manufacturing Inc. to secure a stay of a Notice of Arbitration.

The success was based on the legal principle against a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings of fact, which outweighed the policy favouring arbitration agreements.

Despite the successful outcome for these parties, the court ordered that costs be "in the cause," citing fairness under Rule 57.01(i).

This decision defers the final determination of costs to the trial judge, who will have a full understanding of the conflicting claims and procedural history.

The respondent, Bissonnette, brought a motion to change a final order to rescind child support arrears.

The court conducted a trial of the issue, considering whether denial of access, delay in enforcement, misrepresentation of arrears, or the child no longer being dependent should preclude enforcement.

The court found no deliberate denial of access by the applicant, no acquiescence in non-payment, and that Bissonnette's delay in seeking relief was unreasonable.

The court declined to preclude enforcement of arrears, deferring the issue of the child's lack of need and hardship to the paying party for a future trial or settlement.

The plaintiffs in a motor vehicle negligence action brought a motion to strike portions of the statement of defence on the basis that it failed to plead material facts regarding damages as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

They also sought an order requiring the defendant to answer a list of written discovery questions.

The court held that the impugned pleadings sufficiently set out material facts relating to damages, particularly given that the defendant would not yet possess detailed knowledge of the plaintiff’s medical condition.

The court further found that the proposed written discovery questions constituted an improper and excessive use of the discovery process.

The motion was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant brought a motion under Family Law Rule 11(3) seeking leave to amend her application to include a claim under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The proposed amendment alleged that following separation the respondent transferred substantial funds from a corporation owned directly or indirectly by the applicant to a corporation owned by the respondent.

The respondent opposed the amendment on the basis that the corporations involved should be added as parties to the proceeding.

The court held that amendments should be permitted unless the responding party would suffer non-compensable prejudice, and found that the s. 5(6) claim could be adjudicated without adding the corporations.

The motion to amend was therefore granted.

Following reasons on a motion to change involving a mobility dispute, the court determined the issue of costs.

The responding party had been clearly successful on the motion, particularly on the central mobility issue, triggering the presumption under Family Law Rule 24 that a successful party is entitled to costs.

The court rejected allegations that the moving party acted in bad faith, finding no sinister motive despite vigorous litigation conduct.

Considering the importance and complexity of the issues, the volume of the record, and the overall circumstances, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time to serve a Statement of Claim arising from a motor vehicle collision, or alternatively to validate service nunc pro tunc.

The court applied the governing principles for extending time under the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that relevant prejudice must arise from delay in service rather than the passage of time since the cause of action arose.

The defendant’s insurer had early notice of the potential claim through a third‑party notice letter shortly after the accident, enabling investigation if desired.

The defendant failed to provide evidence of actual prejudice caused by the delay.

The court therefore granted a 21‑day extension of time for service and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 26.01 to add a maintenance contractor as a defendant in a personal injury action arising from an escalator incident at a theatre.

The motion was served more than two years after the accident, requiring the court to determine whether the discoverability principle under the Limitations Act, 2002 could extend the limitation period.

The court found that the plaintiff had early knowledge of the contractor’s potential involvement through incident reports and communications with insurance adjusters but took no investigative steps to pursue the claim.

The court held that neither the plaintiff nor her counsel demonstrated due diligence sufficient to establish a triable issue on discoverability.

The motion to add the proposed defendant was therefore refused as statute-barred.

Following dismissal of the main action and the third party claim, the court determined costs among the parties.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s costs should be reduced due to inadequate documentary production and the calling of allegedly irrelevant witnesses.

The court rejected most of these objections but applied modest deductions for fairness.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considering the complexity of the expert engineering evidence, the court applied a 65% partial indemnity factor rather than the typical 60%.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to both the defendant and the third party.