Jamie Joseph William Spotswood

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

The applicants, Distillery Parties and Rite-Air, sought declarations that their insurers, 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 insurers denied the duty to defend, arguing that the alleged property damage was below the policy's $10,000 deductible, and thus no coverage was triggered.

The court held that the duty to defend is triggered by the mere possibility of a covered claim, regardless of whether the alleged damages exceed the deductible.

The court also rejected the insurers' request for an ex ante allocation of defence costs, stating that such allocation is premature and must be determined ex post facto based on actual legal expenses for exclusively uncovered claims.

The applicants, an IT services company and its sole director, sought a declaration that their errors and omissions insurer had a duty to defend them against a copyright infringement action commenced in the U.S. The insurer denied coverage, citing material misrepresentations in the insurance application and various policy exclusions, relying heavily on extrinsic evidence.

The court ruled that the duty to defend is governed by the pleadings in the underlying action and the policy language, not by extrinsic evidence that would convert the motion into a "trial within a trial." Finding that the U.S. claims, on their face, fell within the policy's coverage for a "wrongful act" in connection with "professional business" and within the coverage period, and that the insurer failed to meet its onus to prove exclusions without the inadmissible extrinsic evidence, the application was allowed.

This decision addresses costs following a complex summary judgment regarding the sale of counterfeit headphones.

Computron Systems International Inc. (Computron) and Husain Ladhani et al. (Ladhani) both achieved partial success in their respective summary judgment motions against Techlogics Canada Inc. and Faisal Rashid (Techlogics), while Techlogics was largely unsuccessful.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01(1) and Rule 49.10 (offers to settle), declining to impose Rule 49.10 sanctions due to the conditional nature of the offers involving multiple parties.

The court also addressed the applicability of the Rule 76 simplified procedure and the conduct of the parties.

Ultimately, Computron was awarded $18,000 in costs, apportioned equally between Ladhani and Techlogics.

Ladhani was awarded $16,000 in costs from Techlogics.

The plaintiff sought default judgment against the defendants for misappropriation of partnership funds and improper diversion of business.

The court granted default judgment against the individual defendant for breach of fiduciary duty, awarding compensatory, aggravated, and punitive damages totaling $317,720.35.

The claim for intentional infliction of mental distress was dismissed.

The claim against the corporate defendant for an accounting and disgorgement of profits was also dismissed, as the plaintiff failed to establish that the competing business operated concurrently with the partnership.

Costs were awarded on a substantial indemnity basis.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them unjustly enriched by the transfer of two valuable licenses without payment.

The appellants argued that where contract negotiations have failed, courts cannot use unjust enrichment to impose a contract on the parties.

The Court of Appeal rejected this submission, distinguishing the case from Skibinski v. Community Living British Columbia.

The trial judge had found as a fact that the appellants had no reasonable expectation of receiving the licenses for nothing.

The appellants also challenged the damages award, but the Court of Appeal found the trial judge's assessment entitled to deference.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

An appeal from a trial judgment in which the trial judge found that an employee, who held the position of Assistant Vice President of Campus Services and Building Operations, had misappropriated nearly one million dollars from York University through various fraudulent schemes between 2007 and 2009.

The employee was terminated without cause and paid a severance package of $696,166 with mutual releases after vehemently denying any wrongdoing.

York subsequently discovered the full extent of the misconduct and sued to rescind the severance agreement and recover the stolen funds.

The trial judge found that the employee had fraudulently misrepresented his innocence and that the claim was not barred by the limitations period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants, TVM Sault Inc. and TVM Construction Management Inc., sought leave to bring a motion compelling the plaintiff, Focal Elements Ltd., to post security for costs under Rules 56.01(1)(d) and (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted leave, finding that TVM had established a good reason to believe Focal had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

While Focal's claim was not deemed frivolous or vexatious, Focal failed to demonstrate impecuniosity or sufficient assets to satisfy a cost order.

The court ordered Focal to pay $10,350 as security for costs for the period up to and including examinations for discovery, applying a "rough justice" discount to the quantum requested by TVM due to lack of particulars and overlap with a counterclaim.

The defendant Focal Elements Ltd. brought a motion seeking a declaration that the plaintiff 9448616 Canada Ltd.'s construction lien had expired, an order discharging the lien, and dismissal of 944's action in its entirety.

Focal also sought the return of funds posted as security.

The grounds for the motion included 944's failure to set the action down for trial or obtain a trial order within two years of commencing the action, as required by the Construction Lien Act, and non-compliance with a prior court order to appoint new counsel or obtain leave to be self-represented.

The court granted Focal's motion, finding that the lien had expired due to non-perfection and that 944 had failed to comply with the prior order.

The action was dismissed, and the security funds were ordered to be returned to Focal.

The respondent moved to strike portions of the appellants' Notice of Appeal as vexatious and an abuse of process under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants sought to appeal orders that were either not appealable to the Court of Appeal, were not timely appealed, or had been previously dismissed on appeal.

The motion judge determined that the motion was effectively a motion to quash part of the appeal and therefore should be brought before a panel of the court using the prescribed procedure rather than under Rule 25.11.

The motion was dismissed with costs.