Master Joan M. Haberman

The defendant moved to discharge an ex parte order granting the plaintiff leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against its land.

The plaintiff claimed an easement over the defendant's land pursuant to a Storm Water Pond Agreement entered into with a previous owner.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure before the ex parte master, including misrepresenting the nature of the alleged easement and failing to disclose a rejected development application by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority.

The court set aside the ex parte order, concluding the plaintiff had no reasonable claim to an interest in the land, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendant.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the three corporate plaintiffs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) and (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they had sufficient exigible assets in Ontario to satisfy a costs award, as their primary assets were patents of uncertain value and marketability.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to establish a good chance of success on the merits, particularly given adverse credibility findings against their principal in a related arbitration.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiffs were ordered to post security for costs in tranches.

The plaintiff brought a motion for costs following a protracted dispute over document production from a non-party former solicitor.

The dispute caused a seven-year delay in the action.

The court found the non-party solicitor acted unreasonably in failing to justify his fees for producing documents, while the plaintiff and defendants also contributed to the delay and unnecessary litigation.

The court ordered the defendants to pay $30,000 in costs to the plaintiff and $600 in costs to the non-party.

The moving party, Siddiqsons, brought a motion to strike a further affidavit delivered by the responding party, Adler, in the context of a long-delayed Show Cause hearing.

Siddiqsons argued that Adler had no right to submit further materials without leave and that the affidavit was served too late.

The Master dismissed the motion, finding that Siddiqsons had caused the initial procedural irregularities by serving their own materials late and failing to address the issue of prejudice.

Because Siddiqsons' evidence on prejudice was effectively responding evidence, Adler was entitled to deliver reply evidence.

The motion was dismissed and a new deadline for cross-examinations was set.

The defendant brought a motion for leave under Rule 48.04 to compel the plaintiff to re-attend for a further examination for discovery and to permit examination on all events since the last discovery.

The action arose from a motor vehicle accident in 2005, with discovery in 2011 and the action set down for trial in 2015.

The court found the evidentiary basis for the motion, an affidavit by an articling student, problematic due to reliance on hearsay regarding the plaintiff's alleged employment change.

The defendant failed to demonstrate a "substantial or unexpected change in circumstances" or that refusing leave would be "manifestly unjust," as required by Rule 48.04(1).

The motion was dismissed, with the court also noting deficiencies in the motion record, including the absence of tax returns and discovery undertakings.

The applicant, Helen Wong, brought a motion to amend her statement of claim to add three new defendants, including G4S, after the presumptive limitation period had expired.

Wong had suffered a slip and fall injury and initially sued the condominium corporation and its snow removal contractor.

New information, received after the limitation period, suggested G4S and another entity might also be liable for snow and ice removal.

G4S opposed the motion, arguing Wong failed to exercise due diligence.

The court granted the motion, finding that Wong had conducted reasonable investigations and that the incident report provided by G4S did not indicate their responsibility for exterior snow/ice removal, thus the discoverability principle applied to extend the limitation period.

The plaintiff, Wylie, brought a motion to amend his Amended Statement of Claim in a wrongful dismissal action.

The proposed amendments sought to increase the prayer for relief and to specifically claim damages for past short-term disability (STD) benefits and past and future long-term disability (LTD) benefits, arguing that the employer failed to provide benefits during the notice period or prejudiced his right to such benefits.

The defendants opposed, arguing that the amendments introduced new causes of action beyond the limitation period and would cause irreparable prejudice.

The court granted the motion, finding that the amendments did not constitute new causes of action but rather provided particulars or different legal conclusions arising from facts already pleaded.

The court also found that any alleged prejudice to the defendants was self-inflicted due to their own actions regarding the plaintiff's termination and benefits.

The defendant, K & S Temporary Medical Services Inc., moved to strike the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim.

This was the sixth pleading motion in an action commenced in 2009, with the plaintiffs, represented by Helen Cerqueira, repeatedly failing to produce a compliant pleading despite extensive judicial guidance from multiple judges.

The court found the latest pleading still fundamentally unworkable, lacking clarity, organization, and specificity regarding duties, breaches, and damages.

Given the history of non-compliance and a prior 'last chance' order, the claim was struck without leave to amend.

The plaintiff, Abdul Nabi, sought to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a property legally owned by the defendant, Amar Qadeer, claiming beneficial ownership under an oral trust agreement.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence inconsistent and lacking documentary proof to establish a plausible claim to an interest in land, particularly in light of the Statute of Frauds.

The motion was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue and the equities favored the defendant, who had occupied the property as his family home since 2012.

The plaintiff moved to vary a timetable order and extend the date to set the action down for trial, while the defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The action had previously been dismissed for delay and restored with a strict timetable, which the plaintiff breached.

The court found the plaintiff's delay in producing an expert report on damages was intentional, contumelious, and largely unexplained, exacerbated by the undisclosed destruction of their financial records prior to commencing the action.

The plaintiff's motion was dismissed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the action for delay was granted.

The plaintiff condominium corporation moved to amend its statement of claim prior to the defendants' scheduled motion for summary judgment.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that a prior procedural agreement reached at mediation barred the amendments, that the amendments raised new causes of action past the limitation period, and that they constituted an abuse of process and caused non-compensable prejudice.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments, finding that the mediation agreement did not waive the mandatory application of Rule 26.01, the amendments merely particularized existing claims rather than raising new causes of action, and there was no evidence of bad faith or non-compensable prejudice.

Leave to amend the statement of claim was granted.

A motion was brought to set aside a registrar's order dismissing an action for delay, which was prematurely issued due to a court staff error.

The court found the registrar lacked authority to issue the dismissal order, rendering it a nullity.

Despite some delay attributable to former counsel's inadvertence and the plaintiffs' initial inaction, the court emphasized the policy bias towards hearing cases on their merits.

The defendant's claims of prejudice were not substantiated or causally linked to the plaintiffs' delay, and their passivity in addressing the dismissal order undermined their position.

The motion was granted, setting aside the dismissal order and reinstating the action with new deadlines for mediation and setting down for trial.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on ice on a municipal sidewalk in front of a private home.

She sued the City and the homeowner.

After the presumptive two-year limitation period expired, the homeowner issued a third-party claim against her neighbours and their contractor, alleging water discharged from their property caused the ice.

The plaintiff moved to add the neighbours and contractor as defendants.

The neighbours opposed, arguing the limitation period had expired.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff exercised due diligence and could not reasonably have discovered the neighbours' potential involvement until served with the third-party claim.

The plaintiff's action was administratively dismissed for delay under Rule 48.14 after failing to set the action down for trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the registrar's dismissal order.

The court applied the Reid factors and a contextual approach, finding that the delay was adequately explained, resulted from counsel's inadvertence, and that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing his personal injury action for delay.

The action arose from a 2008 bicycle and motor vehicle accident and had been dismissed twice for failing to set the matter down for trial.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting that plaintiff's counsel had lost contact with their client.

The court also found that the defendant would suffer significant prejudice due to the passage of time, the loss of access to older medical records, and the inability to conduct a timely independent medical examination regarding a pre-existing knee condition.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 56.07 for an order requiring the foreign plaintiff to post further security for costs.

The plaintiff conceded it had no assets in Ontario and was not impecunious, but argued it had a good chance of success on the merits in the context of an upcoming status hearing.

The court rejected the plaintiff's novel approach of assessing merits based on the status hearing rather than the action itself.

Finding the merits neutral and noting the plaintiff's failure to provide evidence regarding the action's merits, the court ordered the plaintiff to post an additional $35,400 in security for costs.

The plaintiff sought to add Manulife as a defendant to a long-term disability claim after the expiry of the presumptive limitation period, having initially sued the wrong insurer (Great-West Life).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence to discover the correct insurer and that adding Manulife would cause actual prejudice, as they lost the opportunity to conduct timely medical assessments and charge back benefits to the policyholder.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to traverse the main action to Small Claims Court and to discontinue the Family Law Act claim.

The discontinuance was unopposed and granted.

The defendants opposed the transfer to Small Claims Court primarily over the quantum of costs thrown away and the preservation of a prior deferred costs order.

The court granted the transfer on the condition that the plaintiff pay fixed costs thrown away of $1,124.62 and agree in writing to pay the prior costs order at the conclusion of the action.

The defendant bank brought a motion seeking a further and better affidavit of documents and leave to amend its statement of defence in an action arising from three vehicle financing loans.

The amendments alleged that the plaintiff engaged in numerous additional vehicle transactions with related dealerships, making those transactions relevant to the issues in the action.

The court held that the plaintiff’s pleadings placed the nature of these additional transactions and relationships in issue, rendering documentary disclosure concerning them relevant.

The court rejected arguments based on proportionality and lack of relevance, emphasizing the significant damages claimed and the scope of the pleadings.

The defendant’s motion for further documentary production was granted and the plaintiff was ordered to produce the documents within 45 days.

The plaintiff law firm brought a motion to add two brothers of the defendant to an action for unpaid legal fees.

The firm sought to bind the brothers, as contingent beneficiaries of their mother's estate, to a claim for fees to be paid from the estate upon her death.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed pleading problematic, the brothers' status as beneficiaries uncertain until the mother's death, and noting the firm failed to utilize the appropriate remedy under section 34 of the Solicitors Act.