Jamie Joseph William Spotswood

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a prior decision of the Superior Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs fixed at $5,000 to the responding party.

The court noted it considered the responding party's original factum and compendium but not the subsequently provided amended versions.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order compelling the plaintiff to post security for costs pursuant to Rule 56.01(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff admitted it lacked immediate cash flow for security but asserted it was not impecunious and refused to disclose financial information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the plaintiff might have cash flow issues, it was not satisfied that the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets to satisfy a costs award.

Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's claim had a good chance of success and that granting the order would be unjust, potentially preventing a bona fide claim from proceeding.

The plaintiffs, TVM Cobourg Inc. and TVM Construction Management Inc., brought a motion to compel the defendants, Peter C. Hillar and Greyfield Construction Co. Ltd., to answer outstanding undertakings and refusals from discovery.

The action concerns damages for fraudulent/negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and defamation related to a condominium development, with a counterclaim by the defendants for amounts owing.

The court analyzed the refusals based on relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure, categorizing them into Greyfield's damages/non-payment, parallel proceedings, and obligations under the Rules.

The court ordered the defendants to answer specific refusals and produce a consolidated affidavit of documents, and to clarify the remaining amount owed.

This addendum to reasons on undertakings and refusals motions addresses Delta Plus Group's claim of litigation privilege over Refusal No. 10, which arose during the examination for discovery.

The court found that Delta failed to provide firsthand evidence from the document's creator to establish that the document was created for the dominant purpose of litigation, as required for litigation privilege.

Consequently, the court ordered Delta to answer the question.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Braid J. dated June 16, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

In a complex commercial dispute stemming from a Share Purchase Agreement and consulting agreements, both the plaintiffs (the Dentes and related entities) and the defendants (Delta Plus Group and its subsidiaries) brought motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals arising from examinations for discovery.

The court addressed various issues including the relevance of financial information, the accessibility of manual journal entries, the sufficiency of particulars for damage claims, and the assertion of litigation privilege.

The court ordered some productions and dismissed others, emphasizing the principles of relevance and proportionality in discovery.

Given the mixed results, the court also ordered that each party bear their own costs and allowed for further limited examinations for discovery.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration that certain communications with their lawyers, which were inadvertently left on the defendants' email servers after a share purchase transaction, were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The plaintiffs also sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit after cross-examinations.

The court granted leave to file the new affidavit.

On the privilege motion, the court found that the plaintiffs' law firm did not represent the target companies during the transaction, meaning no joint privilege passed to the purchaser.

The court also held that the plaintiffs did not waive privilege by using the company email servers, as the disclosure was inadvertent and they maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court reviewed the documents and declared which ones were privileged.

Trac Developments Inc. ("Trac") moved for an order declaring DNR Restoration Inc.'s ("DNR") construction lien expired due to untimely preservation or, alternatively, reducing the posted security.

The court first determined that the "old" Construction Act applied based on the project's earliest contract date.

Regarding timeliness, the court found genuine issues requiring a trial, as Trac failed to prove DNR abandoned the contract before the lien registration period expired.

On the security reduction, while DNR conceded a significant reduction from its initial claim, Trac's further requested reductions for work orders, May-August work, and rebar accessories were also found to involve triable issues.

Consequently, the motion to declare the lien expired was dismissed, and the security was reduced only to the amount DNR had already conceded plus security for costs.

No costs were awarded due to the mixed success and DNR's initial inflated lien claim.

The plaintiff hospital brought an action against the defendant contractor for damages resulting from an over-humidification event that damaged operating room equipment.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to properly install an air handling unit by omitting a required interlock between the supply fan and humidifier.

The defendant argued the damage was caused by hospital staff manually overriding the system.

The court found the defendant liable for breach of contract due to the installation deficiency and failure to train hospital staff, awarding the plaintiff full damages of $908,345.13.

This grouped appeal concerned four applications seeking declarations that the appellant insurers had a duty to defend the respondent corporations against claims of property damage arising from condominium construction deficiencies.

The application judge found a duty to defend based on the "mere possibility" test and refused ex ante allocation of defence costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurers' appeal, affirming the application judge's findings that the "mere possibility" test applies to exclusions and that courts should not conduct a "trial within a trial" on duty to defend applications.

The court also upheld the order for pre-notification defence costs and dismissed a cross-appeal regarding the assessment of past defence costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The court awarded costs to the respondents in the appeal (IT Haven Inc. and Ryan Hunt), fixed at $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

This decision followed an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

This appeal concerned an insurer's duty to defend where the insurer alleged material misrepresentations and breach of policy conditions by the insured.

The insurer, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, denied defence to IT Haven Inc. and Ryan Hunt against a copyright infringement lawsuit, claiming the insured misrepresented their business operations in the insurance application.

The motion judge granted the duty to defend, refusing to consider extrinsic evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal, affirming the duty to defend.

The court applied a flexible approach, distinguishing this from a typical 'pleadings rule' case, and held that resolving the alleged misrepresentations would require determining contested factual issues central to the underlying litigation, which is inappropriate at the duty to defend stage.

The plaintiffs, having succeeded in the action, sought costs.

They argued that their February offer to settle entitled them to elevated costs under Rule 49.

The court found that the offer contained no real compromise on the principal amount and that the fixed costs offer could not be evaluated as a compromise.

Consequently, the court awarded the plaintiffs their costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $54,000 all-inclusive.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the respondent Receiver, representing Hillmount Capital Inc., was successful.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered the appellants, Celine and Richard Pizale, to pay the Receiver partial indemnity costs, fixed at $3,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The plaintiffs, real estate brokers, sued the defendant for unpaid commission on a $17 million property purchase.

The parties disagreed on whether the defendant had orally accepted the plaintiffs' offer to reduce their commission from 1.5% to 0.75%.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court utilized its enhanced fact-finding powers, including hearing oral evidence, to assess credibility.

The court found the plaintiffs' evidence more reliable and consistent with the documentary record, concluding that the defendant had not accepted the reduced commission offer.

The plaintiffs were awarded judgment for the full commission amount of $288,150.

The appellants, Celine and Richard Pizale, sought to appeal orders approving the sale of their partially-renovated property by a receiver and an administration order.

They argued they had an automatic right of appeal under s. 193(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) or, alternatively, should be granted leave to appeal under s. 193(e).

The Court of Appeal dismissed their panel review motion, affirming the chambers judge's decision that no automatic right of appeal existed as the sale approval order did not result in a loss beyond that already worked by the unappealed appointment order.

The court also found no basis to grant leave to appeal, concluding that the appeal did not raise an issue of general importance or prima facie merit, and would hinder the receivership process.

Following successful applications for declarations that the respondent insurers had a duty to defend, the applicants sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The insurers did not dispute the scale but argued the amounts claimed were disproportionate and unreasonable.

The court found the insurers' criticisms unhelpful as they did not disclose their own dockets.

The court awarded $50,000 all inclusive to each applicant.

The plaintiff's insurer brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement regarding its subrogated claim for property damage caused by the defendant's excavation.

The defendant had agreed to pay $400,000 to the insurer, but payment was deferred until a settlement with the named plaintiffs or the outcome of a liability trial.

The defendant subsequently settled with the named plaintiffs and obtained a release, effectively eliminating the liability trial.

The court held that the insurer had standing to enforce the agreement by motion in the main action and ordered the defendant to pay the $400,000 immediately, as the condition for payment had been met by the settlement with the named plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order approving a draft discovery plan in an action for misrepresentation, breach of contract, and defamation arising from a construction project.

The defendants sought to include deadlines for Scott Schedules and a specific provision regarding documentary discovery for their counterclaim.

The court approved the discovery plan with adjusted deadlines, declined to include a deadline for Scott Schedules as they had already been served, and added a general provision for documentary discovery relating to all pleadings.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the plaintiffs in the cause.

The applicants, GFL Infrastructure Group Inc. and Ashland Construction Group Ltd., sought declarations that their insurer, Temple Insurance Company and Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, had a duty to defend them under a Specific Project Wrap-Up Liability Insurance Policy.

The underlying actions involved claims for property damage due to alleged construction defects in a condominium project.

The court granted the applications, finding that the pleadings, including extensive incorporated expert reports, revealed a "mere possibility" that the claims fell within the policy's coverage, thus triggering the duty to defend despite the insurer's arguments regarding faulty workmanship exclusions.