Joseph Doris

The applicants sought the return of their $80,000 deposit after a failed real estate transaction in which the respondent could not provide clear title.

The deposit was returned before the hearing.

The respondent agreed to pay pre-judgment interest and costs but requested several years to pay and sought to join her former lawyer as a third party, alleging the lawyer was responsible for the failed transaction.

The court dismissed the motion to join the lawyer, finding it unrelated to the application, and ordered the respondent to pay the costs and interest within 60 days.

The plaintiff sought a case conference to establish a timetable for the defendant to serve her Affidavit of Documents and for examinations for discovery under Rule 50.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Despite the court's request for proposed timetables, the defendant's counsel advised their client intended to self-represent and failed to provide an alternative timetable.

Finding the defendant's actions to be a delay tactic, the court approved the plaintiff's proposed timetable, ordering the defendant to deliver her Affidavit of Documents by February 29, 2024, and for examinations for discovery to occur on one of the plaintiff's proposed dates in April or May 2024.

The defendants' custom-built home and garage encroached significantly onto the plaintiffs' neighbouring property.

The plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction for the removal of the encroachment.

The defendants admitted trespass but sought an equitable remedy allowing them to retain the land, and brought a third-party claim against the builder, surveyor, and municipality for negligence and breach of contract.

The court declined to order an injunction, finding it would be oppressive to the defendants and that the injury to the plaintiffs was small and compensable by money.

The court ordered the severance and transfer of the encroached land to the defendants for compensation.

The court also found all three third parties liable for the encroachment, apportioning fault 70% to the builder, 15% to the surveyor, and 15% to the municipality, and ordered them to fully indemnify the defendants.

The plaintiff, Canada Forgings Inc. (CanForge), sued Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) alleging breach of a duty of fairness in a procurement process for nuclear reactor components.

CanForge claimed AECL unfairly favored a competitor, Patriot Forge Co., for end fitting forgings for the Bruce and Lepreau projects.

The court dismissed CanForge's claim on two primary grounds: first, it was statute-barred as the claim was discoverable more than two years before it was formally added to the Statement of Claim; second, no Contract A existed between CanForge and AECL, meaning no implied duty of fairness was owed to CanForge as a subcontractor.

The court also assessed damages hypothetically, finding no lost profits even if the claim had succeeded.

This motion addressed whether a main action and a third-party action, stemming from a property dispute involving an encroaching structure, should be heard concurrently or sequentially.

The Plaintiffs sought a combined hearing, while the Defendants and Third Parties preferred separate proceedings.

The court, emphasizing judicial efficiency and fairness, determined that the intertwined factual and legal issues, particularly concerning the appropriate equitable remedy for the admitted trespass and the allocation of financial responsibility among all parties, necessitated a single, consolidated trial.

The motion for concurrent hearings was granted to avoid multiplicity of actions and the risk of inconsistent findings.

Following a summary judgment awarding modest damages for defamation, the plaintiffs sought costs of $35,870.58.

The defendants argued no costs should be awarded under Rule 57.05 because the recovery was within the Small Claims Court limit.

The court held that defamation actions involve more than monetary damages and declined to deprive the plaintiffs of costs, particularly given their prior offers to settle.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the plaintiffs $10,000 in costs.

The plaintiffs in a personal injury action sought a redaction order to conceal the amount of a settlement and advance payments, as well as expert reports on damages, from the public record.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a serious risk to important public interests such as settlement privilege, confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements, or the privacy of litigants, as required by the Sierra Club test.

The extensive media attention was not considered a measure of public interest.

This is a defamation action where the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment against the defendants for negative remarks published on social media.

The court granted summary judgment on liability, finding that the defendants' statements were defamatory and that their pleaded defenses of truth and fair comment could not succeed.

Damages were assessed in a modest amount for the corporate and individual plaintiffs, and a request for a permanent injunction was denied.