Jeffrey W. Tighe

The plaintiff requested a case conference to resolve a scheduling dispute for a mandatory mediation.

The mediator offered dates in late November, but the third party's counsel was only available starting December 11.

The court expressed exasperation at the parties' inability to resolve a two-week scheduling difference, directing them to agree to the December 11 date or face a case conference where a date would be summarily set and costs submissions heard.

The plaintiff credit card issuer sued to recover outstanding balances on a Home Depot credit card account.

The primary cardholder admitted the underlying purchases but argued that interest should be limited to the statutory rate under the Courts of Justice Act rather than the contractual rate.

The secondary defendant disputed liability, claiming he had not been proven to be a co-applicant or authorized cardholder.

The court found that circumstantial evidence established he was a secondary cardholder and jointly liable.

The court also held that, absent exceptional circumstances, contractual interest rates govern both pre‑ and post‑judgment interest, rejecting the request to apply the lower statutory rate.

The plaintiff trustee appealed an order of a Master granting a defendant leave to amend his statement of defence and assert a crossclaim against a co‑defendant following amendments to the statement of claim.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal out of time due to counsel’s inadvertence in missing the filing deadline.

The court granted the extension of time but dismissed the appeal on the merits.

Applying Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that amendments to pleadings should be permitted unless non‑compensable prejudice arises, and that alleged prejudice based on the potential success of a defence does not qualify.

The court further held that any limitation issue concerning the crossclaim was a matter for the co‑defendant and not the plaintiff.

At a status hearing, the defendants argued that the action had been deemed dismissed as abandoned under Rule 48.15(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure because no step had been taken between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011.

The plaintiff contended that Rule 48.15 applies only to undefended actions and that the proper rule governing defended actions was Rule 48.14.

The court reviewed the history and purpose of both rules and held that Rule 48.15, including its transition provision in subrule (6), was enacted to address undefended actions that had not progressed.

The court concluded that the rule does not apply to defended actions, which are already governed by the status hearing regime under Rule 48.14.

The action was therefore not deemed dismissed.

The appellant mortgage broker appealed the trial judge's dismissal of its action against the respondents for unpaid commissions.

The appellant argued the respondents should be liable for breach of contract, oppression, or as principals by piercing the corporate veil.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's refusal to award them costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to pierce the corporate veil or find oppression in what was an ordinary breach of contract by the corporate defendant.

The cross-appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge's decision to deprive the successful respondents of costs due to their borderline dishonest conduct was justified.

The moving parties sought to stay discoveries pending their motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

They argued it would be unfair to allow the third party to conduct discoveries while a conflict of interest issue remained unresolved, and relied on a clause in a mediation agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that the balance of convenience favoured allowing discoveries to proceed.

The court noted the slim chances of leave being granted, the lack of prejudice to the moving parties, and that the mediation agreement did not justify an open-ended stay.