John Maxwell Evans

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of claim against the respondent on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

He argued procedural unfairness because he did not attend the motion hearing, but the court found no prejudice because his written submissions were before the motion judge and he failed to seek a rehearing under r. 37.14(1)(b).

The court agreed that the pleaded claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action, although it noted the motion judge's reference to s. 9 of the Law Society Act may have been misplaced.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed, but the original costs award was reduced and appeal costs were awarded to the respondent.

Following a consent order dismissing the action against several defendants and striking the plaintiff's fresh as amended statement of claim, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to a defendant lawyer due to unfounded allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

Other defendants were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that costs should be limited or denied due to procedural steps or prior cost awards.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay substantial costs to the moving parties.

The defendant regulator moved to strike a self-represented claim alleging reprisal, privacy violations, and accessibility-related breaches arising from an investigation into unlicensed legal services.

The court held the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action, including because the governing statute did not create a private law duty of care and conferred good-faith immunity on the regulator and its officers.

The court further held that the accessibility provisions relied on did not prohibit the investigation or create a civil cause of action on the pleaded facts.

The action was also found frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process because it attempted to re-litigate an earlier dismissed proceeding.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend and the action dismissed.

Multiple defendants moved under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a lengthy statement of claim alleging fraud, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and unjust enrichment arising from unpaid German loan obligations allegedly concealed through asset transfers and trusts.

The court held that the pleading failed to set out material facts supporting the elements of the alleged causes of action and largely consisted of vague allegations and legal conclusions.

Several claims were struck as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, though the plaintiff was granted leave to amend.

The court emphasized the requirement to plead material facts and provide full particulars for allegations of fraud and related claims.

The plaintiff was also ordered to properly produce loan documents referenced in the pleadings.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal on liability and partial success on the costs appeal, the respondents sought costs of the appeal totaling $675,880.87.

The appellant argued for no costs or a significantly reduced amount due to divided success and duplication of counsel by the amalgamated municipal respondents.

The Court of Appeal awarded the respondents one set of costs, fixed at $125,000, reflecting the straightforward nature of the legal issues, the duplication of argument, and the appellant's partial success on the costs appeal.

The appellant, operator of a retirement home, appealed the dismissal of its action for misfeasance in public office against the City of Hamilton and the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, arising from an order to comply issued in 1994.

The appellant also appealed the trial judge's costs award of over $4 million.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the misfeasance claim, finding the public officials acted lawfully and in good faith to protect vulnerable residents.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on costs, reducing the award to a partial indemnity scale and adjusting for duplication of counsel after the City and Region amalgamated.

The appellants held first and second mortgages over properties owned by the respondents.

Following defaults, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and an amending agreement providing for a series of payments.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that $871,345.95 in payments made by the respondents, including proceeds from a judicial sale, should be applied first to retire the first mortgages before reducing the second mortgages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the motion judge to conclude that the context of the agreements and the ongoing threat of foreclosure on the first mortgages indicated the payments were intended to pay down the first mortgages.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to grant relief from ex-parte foreclosure judgments obtained by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found that the respondents failed to make full, fair, and frank disclosure when obtaining the ex-parte orders, specifically by failing to properly account for monies paid by the appellants under minutes of settlement.

The appeal was allowed, and the ex-parte foreclosure orders were set aside.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that limited its damages for lost parking spaces to the value of 20 spaces ($40,650) and dismissed its claim for injurious affection.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge relied on acceptable expert evidence and made no palpable and overriding error in his assessment of damages.

The appellant owned a motorboat that his brother borrowed to take passengers across a lake at night.

The brother made a navigational error and crashed into an island, resulting in one death and serious injuries.

The trial judge found the brother liable as the operator and also found the appellant liable as the owner under the Canada Shipping Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in interpreting the Act as imposing statutory liability on an owner for the fault of the vessel in these circumstances.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered on the issue of the owner's liability under ordinary tort principles.

The appellants challenged an order rejecting their allegation that the respondent had committed perjury in prior trial evidence.

The court held that the taped conversation relied upon did not establish, directly or by reasonable inference, that the respondent had deliberately misled the trial court.

The proposed affidavit evidence was not fresh because it could have been adduced on the motion, and in any event did not provide clear and cogent evidence of perjury or fraud.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.