Jayson W. Thomas

A motion to review an assessment officer's decision regarding costs awarded to a self-represented litigant in a solicitor assessment proceeding.

The applicant, an architectural designer, sought compensation for lost opportunity costs incurred while preparing for and attending a 42-day assessment hearing.

The assessment officer awarded $90,000 for the applicant's time, despite the applicant providing no corroborating evidence of specific lost contracts or delayed projects.

The respondent law firm challenged the award on the ground that there was insufficient evidentiary foundation demonstrating actual lost opportunity.

The court found that while the assessment officer was entitled to infer lost opportunity costs, the award failed to properly apply the legal test requiring a "modest" or "reasonable" fee for self-represented litigants.

The court reduced the award to $40,000.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted against them on a personal guarantee.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by not explicitly considering the three inquiries proposed in Malik v. Attia for partial summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge implicitly considered all relevant factors, and that partial summary judgment was appropriate as it resulted in cost savings, resolved a significant discrete issue, and avoided inconsistent findings.

This appeal concerned a partnership dispute among family members regarding the construction and sale of residential houses.

The appellant appealed the trial judgment which found him in breach of fiduciary duties for concealing a property sale, misrepresenting its value, and attempting to improperly discharge a mortgage.

The appeal raised issues of the respondents' alleged failure to mitigate damages, the trial judge's finding on a partnership agreement, trial fairness regarding cross-examination on a prior disciplinary conviction and the use of an outline by a self-represented litigant, and the calculation of project expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most grounds of appeal but allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge erred by not addressing the appellant's proven project expenses.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, finding her reasons careful and complete, and her articulation of legal principles clear and correct.

The court noted the appellant's self-drafted pleadings were unacceptable and that his later apology and amended drafts were strategic, not genuine.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, an Indian law firm and its senior partner, appealed the dismissal of their motion to stay or dismiss an action brought by Kyko Global Inc., an Ontario corporation.

The action alleged negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract related to a legal opinion provided by the appellants.

The appellants argued that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and was not the convenient forum.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter based on presumptive connecting factors (tort occurring in Ontario, contract made in Ontario) and that the appellants failed to demonstrate that Mumbai, India, was a clearly more appropriate forum.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicants, members of the board of directors of a not-for-profit community centre and mosque, sought a declaration that the board of trustees unlawfully dissolved the board of directors and suspended two applicants.

The court found that neither the constitution nor the Corporations Act granted the trustees or the members at an emergency meeting the authority to dissolve the board or suspend members indefinitely.

The court declared the dissolution and suspensions unlawful and of no force or effect, and awarded costs to the applicants.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendants to comply with undertakings and answer questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The underlying action involved allegations that the defendants diverted funds owed to the plaintiff for goods delivered to Wal-Mart Mexico.

The defendants argued that producing the requested records would impose a disproportionate burden because the records were located in Mexico and the subsidiary was in receivership.

The court ordered the defendants to answer the undertakings and some of the refused questions, and to re-attend for further examination.

However, the court dismissed the motion regarding certain records pending the creation of a Discovery Plan, finding that the plaintiff's failure to create a plan contributed to the necessity of the motion.

No costs were awarded.

The plaintiff, Koolatron Corporation, brought a motion to amend its Statement of Claim to add a claim in fraud against the corporate and individual defendants.

The plaintiff alleged that the fraud was only discovered during examinations for discovery.

The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that the limitation period had expired.

The court found a genuine dispute regarding when the limitation period began to run, which could not be resolved on a motion.

Applying the principles from Frohlick v. Pinkerton Canada Ltd., the court granted the motion to amend, allowing the defendants to plead the limitation period as a defence at trial.

The defendant, Plasponics Inc., brought a motion to transfer the proceeding from Brampton to Windsor, Ontario, pursuant to Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, Concept Plastics Ltd., opposed the transfer.

The court applied a holistic approach to the enumerated factors, requiring the moving party to demonstrate that the proposed venue was "significantly better" than the plaintiff's chosen venue.

The court found that the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence, particularly regarding judicial resource availability in the receiving region, to establish that a transfer was desirable in the interests of justice.

The motion to transfer was dismissed.

The defendants, a lawyer and his firm, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's solicitor negligence action.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants were negligent in their representation of her in a boundary dispute, which was ultimately dismissed for delay after she retained new counsel.

The court found that the defendants had warned the plaintiff in writing about the risk of the action being dismissed for delay when they transferred the file to her new counsel.

Applying the test for summary judgment, the court concluded there was no genuine issue for trial, as the defendants met the standard of care and the delay occurred after their retainer ended.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The court determined costs following the disposition of a civil action involving claims, counterclaims, and third party proceedings.

The third party claims and counterclaims were deemed dismissed under Rules 24.04 and 24.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the plaintiff should indemnify the defendants for any costs payable to the third parties and awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants for defending the action and for the third party claims.

Costs were fixed for motions, third party proceedings, and the main action in favour of both groups of defendants, with reductions reflecting reasonable expectations and prior related litigation.

Following the dismissal of an application for relief from forfeiture, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Both parties agreed that the respondent, as the successful party, should receive costs, but disagreed on the appropriate quantum.

Applying the principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered fairness and reasonableness in light of the matter’s limited complexity and the involvement of junior counsel for the respondent.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and instead fixed partial indemnity costs at an amount between the parties’ proposed figures.

Costs of $3,200 inclusive were awarded to the respondent, payable within 30 days.

A commercial tenant applied for relief from forfeiture after being locked out of leased premises for non‑payment of rent.

The court considered the criteria governing relief from forfeiture under the Commercial Tenancies Act, including the conduct of the tenant, whether the forfeiture was primarily to secure payment of money, and the proportionality between the value of the lease and the harm caused by the breaches.

The evidence showed persistent late payment of rent, failure to comply with lease requirements, interference with other tenants, and the tenant’s self‑help re‑entry after the landlord changed the locks.

The court held that the tenant’s conduct and multiple breaches weighed against equitable relief.

Relief from forfeiture was therefore denied.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment in a debt collection action arising from a loan advanced for a real estate purchase abroad.

The court considered the established factors governing relief from default judgment, including promptness of the motion, explanation for the default, and whether the defendant had an arguable defence on the merits.

Although the court accepted that the motion was brought with some explanation for the procedural default, it found that the proposed defences lacked an air of reality.

The defendant admitted borrowing the funds and partially repaying the loan, and the alleged criminal interest and limitation period defences were unsupported because the plaintiffs sought only repayment of principal and the defendant had acknowledged the debt within the limitation period.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was dismissed and the cross‑motion for summary judgment was rendered moot.