Jonathan Ng

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings on a charge of theft over $5000, alleging unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter after multiple disclosure problems and two adjourned trial dates.

The court applied the Jordan framework and the Hanan contextual apportionment principle to determine which periods were defence delay and how ensuing delay after the adjournments should be allocated.

Although the court found the matter took markedly longer than it reasonably should have and criticized delayed core disclosure, the net delay was reduced to 17.5 months, below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The application failed because the applicant had not taken meaningful and sustained steps to expedite the proceedings.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action on a summary judgment motion.

The respondent corporation had signed an agreement of purchase and sale with the appellant's brother, which failed to close.

The appellant, who was not a party to the agreement, sued for specific performance and compensation for improvements she made to the property.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant had no cause of action, as she was not a party to the contract and any work done prior to closing was at her own risk.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following dismissal of a civil action as res judicata and statute-barred under the Limitations Act, the successful defendant sought costs of the entire proceeding.

The plaintiff argued the requested costs were excessive compared to a prior draft costs outline prepared for an earlier motion.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court reviewed the parties’ submissions and considered proportionality.

The court found the defendant’s partial indemnity rates reasonable and awarded a reduced lump sum for the action.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a ruling that her action should proceed to trial and not be dismissed on a forthcoming summary judgment motion.

The defendant argued that the claim was barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, abuse of process, and the Limitations Act because the same issues had already been adjudicated in a prior action concerning the construction of a residential property.

The court found that the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate factual and legal issues previously determined and that the new action was also commenced outside the applicable two-year limitation period.

Applying principles of proportionality and the culture shift endorsed in Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court determined that further motion proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

The action was dismissed immediately as an abuse of process.