Joseph M. Gottli

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking relief from the deemed undertaking rule to use discovery evidence obtained in the civil proceeding to support a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the College of Pharmacists.

The defendants opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's affidavit referring to prior complaints under s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the public interest in pursuing a professional complaint did not outweigh the prejudice to the defendants, as the plaintiff was seeking to use the civil process to obtain evidence for a separate proceeding.

The cross-motion was also dismissed as the court did not need to rely on the impugned evidence.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's claim based on the expiry of the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period had not expired or, in the alternative, that there were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court found that the plaintiff's decision to forebear from suing earlier, based on promises of payment and a long-standing business relationship, was reasonable.

The court also determined that there were serious credibility issues and disputed facts regarding the nature of the contracts and payments, making it impossible to dispose of the matter summarily.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, requiring a full trial on the merits.

The defendants were successful on a motion to set aside an earlier order regarding a Notice of Sale under Mortgage, as the plaintiffs had provided materially incorrect information to the court.

The court found the plaintiffs were careless and reckless in failing to verify the alleged mortgage default, even after the defendants provided clear evidence of payment.

Applying the principles of reasonableness, fairness, and proportionality, the court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $30,500 inclusive.

The plaintiff, ASI Group Ltd., brought a summary judgment motion against the City of Toronto, alleging a breach of the duty of fairness.

ASI was the lowest compliant bidder for a diving services contract (RFQ#1), but the City cancelled RFQ#1 and re-tendered (RFQ#2), which was subsequently awarded to another bidder.

The City justified the cancellation by claiming the integrity of the tender process for RFQ#1 had been compromised due to the unavailability of previous inspection reports and facility drawings, and a competitive advantage held by bidders with prior experience.

The court found that the City had the contractual right to cancel RFQ#1 under a privilege clause and its Purchasing Bylaw.

It further determined that the unavailability of critical documents and the existing competitive advantage legitimately compromised the integrity of the tender process.

The court concluded that the City acted fairly and equally by cancelling and re-tendering the project, thereby not breaching its duty of fairness.

The motion for summary judgment on liability was dismissed, finding no liability on the City.