Joseph Griffiths

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff had been locked out of its leased commercial premises for unpaid rent, and the premises were subsequently destroyed by an accidental fire.

The court found the defendants met their initial burden of showing the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The plaintiff failed to provide robust financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity or demonstrate a high chance of success on the merits.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $45,000 as security for costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice due to the suspension of civil jury trials in Ottawa caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to compel the injured plaintiff to attend an independent medical examination (IME) without the presence of a support person.

The court granted both motions, finding that the pandemic-related delay justified striking the jury notice to ensure timely access to justice, and that the defendants were entitled to an IME without third-party interference absent medical evidence requiring a support person.

The defendants brought a motion for non-suit to dismiss the plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim and to withdraw the defence of qualified privilege from the jury regarding the plaintiff's defamation counterclaim.

The court granted the non-suit, finding no evidence that the defendants initiated the criminal proceedings, as the police exercised independent discretion.

The court also withdrew the defence of qualified privilege, ruling that statements made by the plaintiffs to a priest were not made on an occasion of qualified privilege.

The defendant moved to remove the plaintiff’s law firm on the basis of a conflict of interest, arguing the firm previously acted as its corporate counsel and therefore owed duties of loyalty.

The court found the defendant was technically a current client at the time the action was commenced, but the prior retainers were limited, sporadic, and of minor scope.

Applying the bright line rule from Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court held it was unreasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to expect the firm would not act against it in unrelated matters.

There was no risk of misuse of confidential information and no substantial risk that the representation would be materially affected.

The court concluded disqualification was not necessary to maintain the integrity of the administration of justice.