Stephen Firestone

The self-represented plaintiff requested that the action be included in the Civil Case Management Pilot-One Judge Model.

The application was denied because the pilot project requires the consent of all parties, and the defendants confirmed they did not consent.

The court noted the parties could request case management under Rule 77 following the disposition of the defendants' upcoming motions to strike.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to transfer a mortgage action from Hamilton to Toronto.

The mortgaged property and the defendants were located in Toronto, while the plaintiffs resided in Hamilton.

The court granted the motion, noting that under Rule 13.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Toronto Region Practice Direction, mortgage proceedings for property located in Toronto must be commenced in Toronto.

The interests of justice required the transfer.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his incapacity to consent to or refuse treatment with antipsychotic medication.

The appellant remained unrepresented and untreated pending the appeal.

The respondent requested the appointment of amicus curiae to assist the appellant.

The court ordered that if the appellant did not retain counsel within 15 days, Legal Aid Ontario was to issue an amicus curiae appointment certificate and amicus would be appointed.

Following summary judgment motions where success was divided, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff recovered $6,132.96 in the main action, while the defendant recovered $51,801.05 in the counterclaim, with the amounts set off against each other.

Both parties sought partial indemnity costs, with the plaintiff claiming $106,063.41 and the defendant claiming $76,730.39.

Given the divided success and the amounts recovered falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court and Simplified Procedure, the court ordered that both parties bear their own costs.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from Barrie to Toronto under Rule 13.1.02.

The plaintiff, who sought an interest in a Toronto property based on renovations he performed, opposed the motion.

The court applied a holistic balancing of the factors under Rule 13.1.02 and found that the interests of justice required the transfer, as the property and the defendants were located in Toronto, and the plaintiff resided a similar distance from both venues.

The motion was granted.

Following a motion to strike where the defendants were largely successful, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendants had successfully struck the plaintiff's claims of negligent investigation without leave to amend, and malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office with leave to amend.

Applying the normative approach to costs and the overriding principle of reasonableness, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' partial indemnity costs fixed at $5,000.

The plaintiff was successful in a wrongful dismissal trial and sought costs.

Following the trial but before costs were decided, the defendant made a voluntary assignment into bankruptcy.

The court noted that the plaintiff did not need to seek an order lifting the stay under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to obtain a costs order, as judgment was rendered prior to the assignment.

The plaintiff beat its offer to settle and sought full indemnity costs of over $232,000.

The court applied the overriding principle of reasonableness, declining to engage in a purely mathematical exercise of reviewing time spent, and fixed the plaintiff's costs at $73,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

During the hearing of an application, the intervener provided a chart that was not entered into evidence.

The court indicated that a further chart could be jointly submitted post-hearing only if all parties agreed to its contents.

As the parties were unable to agree, the court ruled that no further charts, including one submitted by the applicants, would be accepted for filing.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident tort action sought to schedule a motion for partial summary judgment regarding contributory negligence and non-pecuniary general damages.

The trial was already fixed for a few months later.

The court refused to schedule the motion, finding that allowing some damages claims to proceed by summary judgment while others went to trial risked inconsistent findings and duplication of evidence.

Applying the principles of proportionality, timeliness, and affordability, the court concluded that scheduling the motion shortly before trial was not appropriate.

Following a judgment awarding the applicant $62,246.68 for a partnership claim, the parties could not agree on the pre-judgment interest rate.

The applicant sought the default rate of 4.8% under s. 127 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondents argued for a reduced rate of 1.95% under s. 130, citing lower market rates over the lengthy period, the modest recovery compared to the amount claimed, and the applicant's delay.

The court exercised its discretion under s. 130 and fixed the pre-judgment interest rate at 2.2%.

The court issued a consent order setting the timetable for the parties to deliver their costs submissions.