J. Teal is an Ontario lawyer with 3 court cases on record from 2013 to 2022.

What courts has J. Teal appeared in?

J. Teal has appeared in Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has J. Teal handled?

J. Teal has 3 cases on record from 2013 to 2022.

What judges has J. Teal appeared before?

J. Teal has most frequently appeared before Justice Ruth E. Mesbur, Justice Ronna M. Brott, Justice R. M. Brott.

J. Teal | Lawyer

3 total

St. Joseph’s Health Centre v. Probuilt, 2022 ONSC 773

Following a motion where the defendant ProBuilt was permitted to withdraw an admission and amend its pleadings regarding the manufacturer of a wobblelight, the parties made submissions on costs.

The responding parties sought substantial indemnity costs and significant 'reset' costs due to the late amendment.

The court found that while the responding parties were successful in opposing the amendment under Rule 26.01, ProBuilt was granted an indulgence under Rule 51.05.

Balancing the mixed success, the delay, and the reasonable reset costs required, the court ordered ProBuilt to pay $20,000 in partial indemnity costs to each of the three responding parties.

SCJFeb 1, 2022

Applicant Counsel

St. Joseph’s Health Centre v. Probuilt, 2021 ONSC 2972

The defendant, ProBuilt Lighting, brought a motion to withdraw an admission in its Statement of Defence that it manufactured a 'wobblelight' alleged to have caused a fire at a hospital.

The defendant discovered during discoveries that it did not exist at the time the light was manufactured.

The court granted the motion, finding that the admission was based on incomplete and erroneous information, there was a triable issue regarding the manufacturer, and the plaintiffs would not suffer prejudice that could not be compensated by costs.

SCJApr 20, 2021

Applicant Counsel

Bieberstein v. Kirchberger et al., 2013 ONSC 7173

Multiple defendants moved under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a lengthy statement of claim alleging fraud, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and unjust enrichment arising from unpaid German loan obligations allegedly concealed through asset transfers and trusts.

The court held that the pleading failed to set out material facts supporting the elements of the alleged causes of action and largely consisted of vague allegations and legal conclusions.

Several claims were struck as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, though the plaintiff was granted leave to amend.

The court emphasized the requirement to plead material facts and provide full particulars for allegations of fraud and related claims.

The plaintiff was also ordered to properly produce loan documents referenced in the pleadings.

Applicant Counsel