John G. Webster

The respondent, an employee of the National Bank of Canada, developed severe allergic symptoms in April 2010 that she suspected were caused by mould exposure at her workplace.

She ceased working in August 2011 and was not diagnosed with a specific condition until February 2013, when Dr. Patel diagnosed her with a genetic deficiency affecting toxin detoxification and attributed her symptoms to mycotoxin exposure from toxic mould.

The respondent commenced an action in July 2013.

The Bank moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the limitation period commenced in February 2013 when the respondent received Dr. Patel's diagnosis.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no error in the motion judge's application of section 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

This supplementary endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the defendant's successful summary judgment motion.

The defendant sought a partial indemnity cost award of $21,500.

The plaintiff opposed, citing impecuniosity, an excessive claim, and the defendant's professional malpractice insurance.

The court dismissed the insurance argument and, while acknowledging the plaintiff's financial hardship, found the defendant's discounted cost claim reasonable.

A cost award of $18,000 was ordered, emphasizing the plaintiff's responsibility for failing to present evidence despite adjournments.

Following two related applications argued together, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

The successful party sought a global partial indemnity costs award exceeding $40,000 against two opposing parties.

The court emphasized the importance of proportionality, reasonable expectations of the parties, and compliance with Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly the requirement to exchange Costs Outlines before the hearing.

Finding the claimed amount excessive and inadequately supported by time breakdowns, the court reduced the requested costs and apportioned them separately between the two opposing parties based on their respective involvement in the proceedings.

Celadon brought an application seeking a declaration that Hoss exercised an option to purchase a leased commercial property on Celadon's behalf, pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement.

Hoss brought a separate application seeking an order requiring the landlord, Turoczi, to transfer the property to Hoss pursuant to the option.

The court found that Celadon failed to exercise its discretion to require an assignment of the lease within a reasonable time, that there was no equitable assignment of the lease, and that a subsequent Release Agreement terminated any right Celadon had to the lease.

The court also found that Hoss was in good standing under the lease when it exercised the option to purchase.

Celadon's application was dismissed, and Hoss's application was granted, ordering Turoczi to transfer the property to Hoss.

The plaintiffs commenced an action for professional negligence and breach of contract arising from a commercial real estate transaction.

After two years, a status notice was issued, and the plaintiffs requested a status hearing to prevent the action from being dismissed for delay.

The defendants opposed the continuation of the action, arguing the plaintiffs failed to adequately explain the delay or demonstrate an absence of prejudice.

The Master reviewed the conflicting jurisprudence on status hearings and concluded that, while the delay was problematic, the plaintiffs provided a sufficient explanation and the defendants suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The action was allowed to proceed subject to a strict timetable.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff’s claim and related cross-claims were dismissed, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed the reasonableness of the successful defendant’s bill of costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court scrutinized preparation time, trial attendance, and written submissions, reducing several claimed amounts and rejecting certain disbursements including unexplained agency fees, meal expenses, legal research charges lacking detail, and stationery costs treated as overhead.

The court fixed reduced amounts for several litigation stages and limited disbursements.

Counsel were directed to calculate the final payable costs based on the court’s determinations.

The plaintiffs appealed a master's decision refusing to add a party (Trailcon) and refusing to allow amendments to the pleadings after the expiry of the limitation period.

The defendants cross-appealed the master's decision to add another party (684).

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that Trailcon's insurer had constructive notice of the claim, constituting special circumstances to overcome the limitation period.

The court also allowed the amendments, finding they were alternative theories of liability rather than new causes of action.

The cross-appeal was dismissed.

The defendants Garan, Lucow, Miller P.C. and Thomas W. Emery succeeded in their motion for a stay and sought costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded them partial indemnity costs fixed at $4,000, payable jointly and severally by the plaintiffs and the co-defendant Kingsway General Insurance Company.

The moving parties, a Michigan lawyer and his law firm, sought a stay of proceedings pending their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of jurisdiction simpliciter.

The moving parties argued that if they were forced to file a statement of defence, it might constitute an attornment to Ontario's jurisdiction, rendering their leave application moot and causing irreparable harm.

The Court of Appeal applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the leave application raised a serious issue, the potential for attornment constituted irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured granting a stay against all parties due to the intertwined nature of the claims.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appeal, which was successfully resisted by the appellants.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellants their costs of the motion on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $4,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellants, a Michigan law firm and one of its members, appealed an order finding that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had jurisdiction over the claims against them and that Ontario was the forum conveniens.

The plaintiffs, an Ontario transportation company and its president, sued the appellants for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from their representation in a Michigan action.

The Court of Appeal applied the Muscutt factors and upheld the motions judge's finding of a real and substantial connection to Ontario, emphasizing the multiplicity of parties and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The Court also upheld the finding that Michigan was not clearly the more appropriate forum, dismissing the appeal.

The self-represented plaintiff appealed an order striking his statement of claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiff had sued his former solicitor for failing to provide a letter confirming the plaintiff's version of events regarding a property sale, claiming damages for mental anguish.

The Divisional Court held that while a witness is absolutely immune from suit for acts related to giving evidence, it was not plain and obvious that a solicitor owes no duty to provide their own recollections to a former client.

The appeal was allowed in part to permit the plaintiff to amend his claim to seek only a statement of the solicitor's recollections, without any claim for damages.

The appellant landlord sued the respondent, a competing landlord, for inducing breach of contract after a tenant abandoned the appellant's building and signed a new lease with the respondent.

The tenant had previously threatened to terminate its lease due to the appellant renting space to an abortion clinic.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment dismissing the action, finding no genuine issue for trial because the evidence showed the tenant had already decided to terminate its lease before any contact with the respondent.