F.L. Myers

Following an eight-day family law trial, the court determined the costs award.

Although the respondent was largely successful on the main issues, including equalization and spousal support, he engaged in significant unreasonable behaviour, including ignoring trial management orders, raising irrelevant allegations, and failing to deliver materials on time.

The court reduced the respondent's costs claim from $80,285 to $50,000 to reflect this unreasonable conduct.

The applicant moved to enforce prior disclosure orders, fix dates for questioning, and direct terms for the parties' IT consultants to confer.

The respondent sought an adjournment due to his principal counsel's trial commitments and late service of motion materials.

The court denied the adjournment, finding no unfairness to the respondent and noting the severe prejudice that further delay would cause to the scheduled trial management conference.

The court ordered the respondent to produce the requested electronic data, financial back-up documents, and a privilege log, and directed the IT consultants to confer without counsel present to facilitate the extraction of electronic evidence.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final family law order after a decade of litigation involving egregious breaches of court orders, contempt of court, and a fraudulent conveyance action.

The respondent requested the matter be dealt with under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the application appeared to be an abuse of process and directed the registrar to issue a notice to the applicant to provide written submissions as to why the application should not be dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced an action against numerous defendants, including former Prime Ministers, judges, and the Queen Mother, arising from an alleged slip and fall at a beer store.

The statement of claim sought compensation in bars of gold and contained incomprehensible allegations regarding criminal organizations and the apprehension of her daughter.

Following a request by two defendants, the court considered whether to dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiff allowing her to provide written submissions as to why the action should not be dismissed, and stayed the action in the interim.

The defendants requested that the plaintiff's action be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The plaintiff's claim related to an unsuccessful workers' compensation claim.

The court found the statement of claim appeared frivolous on its face and raised concerns about abusive litigation.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice that it was considering dismissing the action and stayed the proceeding pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The moving party brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties, and preferably to enforce an unsigned Separation Agreement.

The court found that the Minutes of Settlement were binding and in full force, as the responding party had already received over $2.1 million and monthly spousal support under its terms.

The court declined to enforce the unsigned Separation Agreement but settled the terms of the formal order enforcing the Minutes of Settlement.

The responding party was ordered to pay costs of $5,500.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 12-year marriage.

The trial addressed equalization of net family property, child and spousal support, and the enforceability of an Iranian marriage contract and foreign judgment.

The court found the applicant owned several properties in Iran and included them in her net family property.

The court refused to enforce an Iranian default judgment regarding a gold coin pledge because the respondent had no notice of the foreign proceeding.

The court imputed income to both parties due to inadequate financial disclosure, ordered the applicant to pay an equalization payment of $227,530, ordered the respondent to pay child support, and dismissed the applicant's claims for spousal support and a restraining order.

The respondent wife brought a motion to set aside a divorce order obtained by her husband.

The husband had obtained the divorce on an ex parte written motion by filing a fraudulent affidavit of service and falsely swearing that the parties had been separated for a year.

The court found that the husband deliberately misled the court and committed a fraud.

Despite the reluctance to re-open in rem judgments like a divorce, the court set aside the divorce order to prevent the court's process from being misused.

The franchisor (moving party) brought a motion to hold the former franchisees (responding parties) in civil contempt for breaching an interlocutory injunction that required them to immediately shut down their home care businesses.

The court found that while the franchisor's own confusing communications mitigated some of the franchisees' conduct, the franchisees deliberately violated the order by sending communications to caregivers and customers stating their intention to remain in business.

The court held the corporate franchisees and their individual operating minds in civil contempt, reserving the penalty to a future hearing.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action after the plaintiff failed to comply with a prior court order requiring him to pay outstanding costs.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant with a history of obstreperous behaviour, had accumulated significant unpaid costs orders and failed to provide any justification for his non-compliance.

The court found that the plaintiff's continued failure to obey court orders constituted wilful defiance and an abuse of process.

The motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and further costs were awarded to the defendants.

Following a family law trial where oral reasons were given, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant wife had unreasonably sought to deny the respondent husband access to their children, while the husband had engaged in financial nondisclosure and hid assets.

Furthermore, both parties had conducted their business and personal affairs in cash to evade income tax obligations.

Given the mutual misconduct, unreasonableness, and failure to make full disclosure, the court declined to award costs to either party.

Following a judgment setting aside certain transactions as fraudulent conveyances, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the respondents' coordinated efforts to defeat the course of justice and the applicant's offer to settle justified substantial indemnity costs.

However, the court reduced the costs award by 25% to account for the applicant's divided success on certain issues and her failure to fulfill procedural obligations.

The respondents were ordered to pay costs of $83,179.84.

The defendants requested that the plaintiff's $10 million wrongful dismissal claim be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The plaintiff alleged she was fired for complaining about being used to conduct fraudulent financial transactions.

The court declined to issue a notice under Rule 2.1, finding that the statement of claim, though drafted by a layperson, stated clear causes of action and did not present a risk of abuse that would preclude the normal motion process under Rules 20 or 21.

The defendants requested that the court direct the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs claimed $10,000,000 for assault and battery, alleging police misconduct and a cover-up.

The court declined to issue the notice, finding that while the allegations might seem outrageous, there was no indication on the face of the statement of claim that allowing the normal motion process under Rules 20 or 21 to proceed would involve a risk of abuse.

The self-represented plaintiff sued the City of Toronto and others after suffering an electric shock and falling onto a city sidewalk while installing a sign.

The City requested the claim against it be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found the statement of claim provided no basis for liability against the City and directed the registrar to issue a notice giving the plaintiff an opportunity to file written submissions before a final determination is made.

The plaintiff brought an action against the City of Toronto for $100,000, alleging that municipal lifeguards illicitly targeted him for swimming too slowly in the fast lane.

The plaintiff claimed breaches of the Statute of Frauds and the Competition Act.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the exercise of discretion by lifeguards cannot be challenged in a civil action for damages and that the statutes relied upon had no application, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action arising from a real estate transaction.

The plaintiffs, real estate developers, purchased surplus government land and later faced blockades by aboriginal protesters.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants breached a duty of good faith and failed to disclose latent defects by not informing them of prior monetary claims and a lawsuit by the Six Nations regarding the land.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding no duty to disclose the claims under the contract, no evidence of dishonesty to trigger a breach of good faith, and that the claims did not constitute a latent defect as they did not render the land uninhabitable or dangerous.

The plaintiff Najla Rahimi moved for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim brought against her by the defendants.

The case involves a rear-end motor vehicle collision where the defendant Mojtaba Hatami, driving a leased car, rear-ended the plaintiffs' car.

The defendants claimed Najla Rahimi was contributorily negligent for stopping suddenly.

The court found no evidence of negligence by Najla Rahimi and held the defendant 100% liable for the collision.

The counterclaim was dismissed, and liability in the main action was resolved in favour of the plaintiffs, leaving only damages for trial.

On a summary judgment motion by the plaintiff driver, the court dismissed a counterclaim seeking contribution and indemnity arising from a rear-end collision.

Applying the Hryniak framework and the best foot forward principle, the court held the evidentiary record was sufficient to decide liability without a trial.

The defendant driver failed to rebut the presumption of negligence applicable in rear-end collisions, and there was no admissible evidence giving an air of reality to any allegation of contributory negligence by the plaintiff driver.

The ruling necessarily resolved liability in the main action, leaving only the assessment of damages for trial, while costs of the counterclaim were reserved.

In an action concerning an alleged conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of her share of her late father's estate, the plaintiff moved for further production of pre-2004 medical records from the defendant doctor and the federal government regarding her father's shock therapy in 1969 or 1970.

The defendant Birch also moved to compel the plaintiff to answer a refusal to obtain records from Bell Canada regarding an alleged wiretap.

The court dismissed all motions, finding the plaintiff's production requests lacked relevance and violated the principle of proportionality, and that Birch's motion for Bell Canada records was also disproportionate given the minimal relevance and alternative remedies available.