3 total
Motion to strike jury notice and reduce claim to Simplified Procedure limit denied to prevent non-compensable prejudice.
The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend their Statement of Claim to reduce the monetary amount claimed to $200,000 to proceed under the Rule 76 Simplified Procedure, and to strike the defendant's Jury Notice.
The court found that striking the Jury Notice would cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendant by depriving them of their substantive right to a jury trial.
The court granted leave to amend the claim, but ordered that the monetary limit not be reduced below $200,001.00 to keep the matter out of the mandatory Simplified Procedure rules, thereby preserving the jury trial without causing undue delay or procedural complications.
Arbitration Application granted
Peel Condominium Corporation No. 96 brought an application under section 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998 to order a unit owner, Carmine Leuzzi, to cease and desist from harassing individuals on the condominium property.
Mr. Leuzzi brought a cross-application under section 135 of the Act seeking an oppression remedy.
The court addressed several preliminary evidentiary issues, including the admissibility of audio recordings and hearsay statements in affidavits.
Ultimately, the court granted the condominium corporation's application and dismissed the unit owner's cross-application.
Motion to transfer action to Small Claims Court or Simplified Procedure dismissed due to late stage and existing jury notice.
The plaintiff brought a motion to transfer his action for long-term disability benefits to the Small Claims Court or, alternatively, to continue it under the Rule 76 Simplified Procedure.
The defendant opposed the motion, arguing prejudice due to the loss of its right to a jury trial and the advanced stage of the litigation.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that continuing under Rule 76 would improperly require striking a pre-2020 jury notice, which an Associate Justice lacks jurisdiction to do.
Furthermore, transferring to Small Claims Court at this late stage, after significant discovery and without compensating the defendant for costs thrown away, would be unfair and contrary to the interests of justice.
