Joseph W.L. Griffiths

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring the corporate respondent the sole owner of two boats and awarding damages for breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, and punitive damages.

The appellants also appealed the dismissal of their counterclaim and the costs awards.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge reasonably concluded there was a contract for the sale of the boats but no joint venture agreement.

The court found no errors in the trial judge's findings on fiduciary duty, defamation, damages, or costs.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $17,000 awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff hired the defendants to convert a carport into an enclosed garage for $62,000.

The defendants falsely represented that no building permit was required and that the work would comply with applicable codes.

The structure was built without a permit and was structurally deficient.

Upon inspection by a professional engineer, the structure was found to be unfit for purpose and was demolished.

The defendants failed to appear at trial after initially retaining counsel and preparing responding material.

The court struck the defence and proceeded with an uncontested trial.

Judgment was rendered in favour of the plaintiff for the full contract price, demolition costs, engineering fees, and damages for inconvenience and interference with use of property.

This decision concerns a dispute between two couples and their closely held corporations over the ownership and operation of "Tiki" boats in Wasaga Beach, Ontario.

The court found that no binding joint venture or operator agreement was reached, and that the only enforceable contract was the sale of the boats to the plaintiffs.

The defendants' unilateral actions with Transport Canada and defamatory statements on social media led to findings of breach of fiduciary duty and defamation, resulting in damages and punitive damages awarded to the plaintiffs.

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order for the plaintiff, Rafik Yasso, to undergo independent medical examinations (IMEs) by a neuropsychologist and a physiatrist.

The plaintiff opposed, citing past negative experiences with IME scheduling and the triggering of his anxiety/PTSD.

The court found that the defendant had a procedural and substantive entitlement to these examinations.

Despite the plaintiff's past difficulties, the court determined there was no compelling reason preventing his participation and that the prejudice to the defendant in proceeding to trial without responding medical evidence outweighed the plaintiff's inconvenience.

The motion was allowed, and the plaintiff was ordered to attend the IMEs, with no costs awarded due to shared responsibility for the difficulties.

This is a costs endorsement following the successful dismissal of an action against the defendant Aeden Helmer under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Mr. Helmer sought full indemnity costs of $78,580.35.

The plaintiff, Paula Riopelle, argued for no costs or partial indemnity, citing privacy concerns and the nature of the action.

The court affirmed the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs for successful anti-SLAPP motions, finding no basis to depart from it.

The court also assessed the quantum of costs, concluding that the amount claimed was fair, reasonable, and proportionate given the complexity and importance of the issues, including freedom of expression and the open court principle.

Mr. Helmer was awarded full indemnity costs of $78,580.35.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action due to the plaintiff's failure to pay ordered security for costs ($45,000) and costs ($8,400).

Despite being given extensions and opportunities, the plaintiff provided no evidence of payment or a plan to pay.

The court, balancing the importance of procedural compliance with access to justice, found no compelling reason to grant further indulgence and dismissed the action under Rule 56.06.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the defendants.

Following an eight-day trial where Mr. Park's action was dismissed, Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. sought partial indemnity costs of $135,814.08.

Mr. Park argued the amount was excessive, proposing "no more than $75,000" and incorrectly relying on simplified procedure rules.

The court found counsel rates reasonable but acknowledged potential duplication of effort due to multiple lawyers and students involved over the case's long duration.

Considering the case's moderate complexity, importance to both parties, and Costco's full success, the court fixed Costco's costs at $120,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendants, successful on a prior motion for security of costs, sought substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued for costs to be reserved or deferred, or capped at a lower amount.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct, including failure to provide financial disclosure and file a motion record, was unreasonable, contributing to the complexity and costs incurred by the defendants.

Consequently, the court awarded elevated costs of $8,400 to the defendants, payable within 30 days, rejecting the plaintiff's arguments for deferral or a lower quantum.

The plaintiff, a 20-year employee, was terminated for just cause by the defendant after he twice deliberately deleted a company website he had created and engaged in insubordinate and dishonest conduct.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal, claiming damages for pay in lieu of notice, loss of benefits, breach of human rights, bad faith, and aggravated damages.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding that his actions constituted wilful misconduct incompatible with the fundamental terms of his employment relationship, thereby justifying summary dismissal.

The court also found no evidence to support claims for bad faith or human rights damages, concluding that the employer's investigation was adequate and that the plaintiff's mental health did not play a role in the termination decision.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that awarded damages and other relief to the respondents in a land development dispute.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's reasons lacked sufficient analysis for various causes of action, including fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and duty of honest performance.

The appellate court also identified factual findings that were not supported by the evidence, particularly concerning drainage responsibilities.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal noted problematic judicial conduct during the trial, including an ill-advised bifurcation of the trial and comments that suggested a lack of impartiality.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment below was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The plaintiff, a former real estate agent for the defendant brokerage, brought a motion for an order under Rule 45.02 or an injunction requiring the defendant to set aside commission funds from transactions he closed.

The plaintiff also sought to strike the Statement of Defence or demand particulars.

The court denied the injunction but granted the Rule 45.02 order, finding the plaintiff had a right to a specific fund of commissions.

The defendant was ordered to provide an accounting, pay existing held funds into court, and set aside 12.5% of gross commissions on an ongoing basis.

The defendant was also ordered to provide particulars.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave to appeal and allowed an appeal from the Divisional Court, restoring a motion judge's order to strike jury notices in two civil actions (tort and accident benefits) arising from a motor vehicle collision.

The motion judge had struck the jury notices due to significant delays in scheduling civil jury trials in Ottawa amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, ordering judge-alone trials in tranches.

The Divisional Court had overturned this, finding the motion judge's decision arbitrary due to insufficient evidence of prejudice beyond delay.

The Court of Appeal held that delay alone can constitute prejudice, that appellate courts should show deference to discretionary case management decisions, and that the motion judge had sufficient evidence of local conditions to justify the order.

TD General Insurance Company brought a motion in writing to be added as a statutory third party under s. 258(14) of the Insurance Act, denying coverage to the deceased defendant due to an alleged breach of statutory conditions.

The court adjourned the motion to an oral hearing, citing numerous procedural and substantive deficiencies, including counsel acting as both advocate and affiant, lack of service, and failure to specify the alleged breached conditions.

The court, on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissed the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff alleged that a defendant falsely represented his marital status to a pension plan, leading to him receiving benefits to which he was not entitled.

The court found the action constituted an abusive collateral attack on the pension plan's determination, which was already subject to judicial review by the plaintiff.

Additionally, the plaintiff's claim for children's documents lacked a legal basis.

The action was dismissed without costs.

The appellants, Ronald Patterson and his family, appealed the dismissal of their motions to strike the jury and declare a mistrial in a motor vehicle personal injury action.

During jury deliberations, a juror accessed extrinsic information (Fault Determination Rules) online and shared it.

The trial judge conducted an inquiry, issued a correcting charge, and dismissed the motions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge properly inquired into the extrinsic information and effectively addressed its prejudicial effect with a correcting charge, which the jury was presumed to have followed.

The court found no misapprehension of evidence or patent unreasonableness in the trial judge's decision.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to extend the time for setting the action down for trial and the subsequent dismissal of the action for delay, the court determined the costs payable to the defendants.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that no costs should be awarded, emphasizing the principle of indemnity and the significant defence costs incurred.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity scale, with the primary private sector defendant receiving the largest share due to its robust defence of its licensed operations.

The plaintiff brought an undefended action against his separated spouse for fraud, alleging she forged his signature on credit cards, mortgages, and insurance documents.

The court held a default hearing and accepted the plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence regarding debts incurred in his name and the unauthorized cashing out of life insurance policies.

The court awarded the plaintiff $180,455.79 in damages, including $5,000 in general damages for mental anguish and damage to his credit rating, plus substantial indemnity costs due to the defendant's deceitful conduct.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering rescission of an asset purchase agreement.

The trial judge found that the appellant made fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations regarding defects in the building that were known at the time of closing.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's submissions that the trial judge made extricable legal errors in contract interpretation or that the interpretation was commercially unreasonable.

The court found no palpable and overriding errors or inadequacy of reasons.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

An appeal from a motion judge's decision to dismiss third-party claims against all persons except Barton Thomas Burron in a fraud matter involving Saint Luke Lutheran Church, an unincorporated association.

The motion judge had dismissed the third-party claims on the basis that only Burron had a distinct fiduciary duty and independent standard of care.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that complex issues regarding the status of the plaintiff, the application of law to unincorporated associations, the Negligence Act, and the Rules of Civil Procedure required a full evidentiary record and should proceed to trial rather than be dismissed on a motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time under Rule 48.14 to prevent the automatic dismissal of his action for delay.

The action, commenced in 2013, alleged that the defendants caused artificial flooding on his property.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in advancing the litigation, noting that the outstanding summary judgment motion did not prevent the plaintiff from setting the matter down for trial.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed, and the action was dismissed for delay.