Ivanna Iwasykiw

The defendants moved under Rule 56.01 for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs on the grounds that the plaintiff is not ordinarily resident in Ontario and has insufficient assets within the jurisdiction to satisfy a potential adverse costs award.

The defendants argued the plaintiff's claim is plainly without merit.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the defendants' conduct forced him to leave Ontario, that he has personal property in the jurisdiction, and that the defendants improperly delayed in bringing the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a holistic consideration of all circumstances rendered an order for security unjust, particularly given the substantial delay in bringing the motion, the defendants' failure to offer reasonable explanation for the delay, the plaintiff's particularized evidence regarding the merits of the claim, and evidence that the defendants' conduct contributed to the plaintiff's departure from Ontario.

In this post-verdict decision following a 20-day jury trial in a historical sexual assault case, the court addressed four issues: (1) whether to amend the statement of claim to reflect the jury's verdict exceeding the pleaded amounts; (2) whether to set aside or reduce the $1,000,000 punitive damages award against the estate; (3) whether the defendant organization should be held severally rather than jointly liable; and (4) the appropriate pre-judgment interest rates.

The plaintiff was awarded $400,000 in general and aggravated damages, $940,000 for past income loss, and $50,000 for future counselling, with the jury apportioning liability 75% to the estate and 25% to the organization.

The court upheld the jury verdict in all respects, granting the amendment to the pleading, refusing to interfere with the punitive damages award, maintaining joint and several liability, and awarding pre-judgment interest at 5% on non-pecuniary damages from June 1992 and 2% on pecuniary damages from June 1992, calculated bi-annually.

The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, Robin Edith Smith, after she was violently assaulted by her former neighbour, Edward Cammack.

The decision details the history of the parties' relationship, the circumstances of the assault, the resulting physical and psychological injuries, and the impact on Ms. Smith's life.

The court found that the assault caused significant trauma, leading to Ms. Smith's relocation and ongoing mental health issues.

Damages were awarded for non-pecuniary loss, special damages (including moving and security costs), and future care.

Diesel Freight Forwarders Ltd. (DFF) sought to enforce minutes of settlement against AYS Holdings Inc. (AYS) after AYS breached payment terms.

AYS admitted the breach but argued against strict enforcement, citing cash flow issues.

The court found the settlement agreement enforceable as a contract, distinguishing it from a Rule 49 offer, and ruled that AYS had not demonstrated sufficient prejudice to warrant relief from the agreed-upon consequences of default.

DFF's motion was granted, and AYS was ordered to pay the accelerated amount plus interest and costs.

The plaintiff, Christine Upton, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant, Christopher Carson, seeking damages for sexual assault.

The defendant had been found guilty of sexual assault in criminal proceedings, and his defence in the civil action was struck, leading to a noting in default.

The court assessed general and aggravated damages, loss of competitive advantage, and future care costs, awarding a total of $486,137.90 plus pre-judgment interest and substantial indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to bar the respondent's action for sexual abuse damages.

He argued the action was precluded by a prior divorce settlement that included a payment for damages related to the children.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, holding that the 2011 Final Order did not constitute a valid infant settlement under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the respondent was not a party to the divorce proceeding, her mother was not acting as her litigation guardian, and a master lacked jurisdiction to approve such a settlement.

Strict compliance with Rule 7.08 is essential for protecting persons under disability.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from childhood sexual abuse, arguing the claim was barred by a prior settlement and consent order in Family Court.

The plaintiff argued she was a party under disability at the time and the settlement did not comply with Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the prior settlement was not approved by a judge as required by Rule 7.08, was improvident, and lacked proper supporting materials.

The court held that strict compliance with Rule 7.08 is necessary to protect parties under disability, and therefore the prior order did not bind the plaintiff or bar her action.

The plaintiff sought damages for inducing a breach of contract and defamation against the defendants, alleging false statements were made to third parties regarding his financial reliability and truck repossession, which hindered his ability to secure financing for a new truck.

The court dismissed the claim for inducing a breach of contract, finding no evidence that the defendant intended to cause a breach or that a valid contract existed at the time of the alleged inducement.

The defamation claim was also dismissed, as the court found the statements made by the defendant were truthful or not defamatory, and there was no evidence of malice or that the statements lowered the plaintiff's reputation.

The court also drew an adverse inference against the plaintiff for failing to call key witnesses and produce financial documentation to support his damages claim.