William S. Chalmers

The applicant brought an application for payment of invoices.

At a case conference, the respondent corporation failed to appear despite being provided with the call-in details.

The court established a timetable for the application, including a deadline for the respondent to retain counsel in accordance with Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant law firm brought an application under the Solicitors Act to approve a retainer agreement with the respondent.

The respondent argued she lacked the mental capacity to enter into the agreement.

The Public Guardian and Trustee and other respondents argued the application should be stayed as the respondent was a party under disability requiring a litigation guardian.

The court found the respondent was a party under disability pursuant to Rule 7.01(1) and adjourned the application sine die until a litigation guardian is appointed or medical evidence confirms her capacity to instruct counsel.

The applicants brought a motion for a Norwich Order to compel Teva Canada Limited to produce relevant insurance policies.

The motion was withdrawn on consent after Teva agreed to produce the policies.

Teva brought a cross-motion for a protective order regarding a contract fabrication agreement and a QBE policy, arguing they contained highly sensitive confidential information.

The court granted the protective order, allowing redacted documents to be filed in the court record while unredacted versions are provided to the parties and the presiding judge.

The plaintiff commenced an action and a human rights application against the defendants following his apprehension under the Mental Health Act.

The defendant police services board made a global offer to settle, which required the plaintiff to sign a full and final release, consent to the dismissal of the action, and withdraw the human rights application.

The plaintiff completed the consent and withdrawal but refused to sign the release.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce the settlement under Rule 49.09.

The court found that the plaintiff had accepted the non-severable terms of the offer and ordered the settlement enforced, dismissing the action against the police services board.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment regarding a $1,000,000 loan.

The individual defendant alleged his signature on the loan agreement was forged and claimed the funds were distributed according to a promissory note, which the plaintiffs in turn alleged was forged.

Finding that credibility was clearly in issue, the court adjourned the motion and ordered the parties to provide oral evidence pursuant to Rules 20.04(2.1) and (2.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if a trial is required.

The plaintiffs, a corporation and one of its directors, brought a motion for a Mareva injunction and other relief against the defendant, the other director.

The dispute arose after the defendant applied for a CEBA loan and transferred corporate funds to his personal account.

The court dismissed the motion for a Mareva injunction, finding no strong prima facie case of fraud and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

However, the court ordered the defendant to provide an accounting, produce personal banking records, and deposit outstanding receivables into the corporate account.

The court also provided directions for the ongoing management of the corporation, requiring both directors to authorize future transactions and repay any unauthorized personal withdrawals.

A case management conference was held for a personal injury action arising from a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff's previous lawyer had passed away, and the plaintiff had declared bankruptcy in 2019.

The parties required assistance scheduling the remaining steps in the litigation.

The court established a consent timetable for updated records, further discovery, independent medical examinations, mediation, and setting the action down for trial, and directed the Registrar not to administratively dismiss the action before July 31, 2022.

At a case management conference in a medical malpractice action, the self-represented plaintiff sought to bring motions to amend the Statement of Claim and for further documentary discovery, while the defendant sought a motion regarding the mode of discovery and a timetable.

The case management judge established a timetable for the exchange of motion materials and ordered that examinations for discovery be completed by August 31, 2021.

At a case conference, the court established timetables for the applicants' upcoming motion for a Norwich order against Teva Canada and a motion to amend the Notice of Application to add Sentry Insurance and potentially other insurers.

The court also amended the timetable for the delivery of factums for the main application.

The defendant university sought to dismiss the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found the claim to be an unintelligible, rambling discourse that failed to disclose a valid cause of action.

However, noting that attached documents suggested a potential core complaint regarding the university's failure to follow a collective agreement when declaring the plaintiff persona non grata, the court dismissed the claim without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff 20 days to deliver an amended statement of claim complying with the Rules.

A case conference was held to establish a timetable for three actions arising from a water loss incident.

The moving party confirmed it owned the water heater and did not retain maintenance services, leading the responding parties to seek instructions to dismiss the action against the rental and maintenance companies.

The parties agreed to a schedule for discoveries and to an order that the three actions be tried together.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action due to the suspension of civil jury trials in the Toronto Region during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted leave to bring the motion after the action was set down for trial, finding the pandemic constituted a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances.

The court struck the jury notice, concluding that the prejudice to the plaintiffs caused by the uncertain delay in waiting for a jury trial outweighed any prejudice to the defendants, who provided no evidence of a litigation strategy reliant on a jury.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for court approval of a $10,000,000 settlement in a medical malpractice action involving a minor who suffered severe birth injuries resulting in cerebral palsy.

The plaintiffs' counsel sought approval of a contingency fee of $3,136,500.

The court adjourned the motion, finding that it could not assess the reasonableness of the proposed fee without reviewing the time dockets for each professional who worked on the file.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' derivative claims under section 61 of the Family Law Act.

The primary plaintiff's claim had previously been dismissed following a settlement.

The court held that derivative claims cannot continue once the primary claim is dismissed, applying the doctrine of res judicata.

In the alternative, the court found the action should be dismissed for delay, as the plaintiffs had failed to appoint new counsel or move the action forward.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed without costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in an action for debt collection and breach of trust under the Construction Act.

Due to pandemic-related delays in exchanging records, the parties consented to convert the matter into a two-day summary trial.

The court scheduled the summary trial, directed the parties to a pre-trial conference, and exempted the action from mandatory mediation.

The plaintiff brought a motion for directions following a successful appeal of an arbitration, seeking to proceed expeditiously after losing confidence in the arbitrator.

All parties agreed to adjourn the motion pending an evaluation from Tarion regarding the return of deposits.

The court agreed it was in the interests of justice to adjourn the matter to August 5, 2021.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident claim brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice due to the suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted leave to bring the motion after the action was set down for trial, finding the pandemic constituted a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances.

Applying a five-factor analysis, the court concluded that the plaintiff would suffer prejudice from further delay, while the defendants failed to demonstrate specific prejudice.

The motion was granted, and the matter was directed to proceed as a judge-alone trial.

The plaintiff, a former route supervisor for the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for her alleged involvement in a group benefits fraud scheme involving a healthcare supplier.

The TTC counterclaimed for the amount of the fraudulent benefits paid.

The court found that the plaintiff knowingly participated in the fraud by submitting claims for unnecessary medical devices and splitting the reimbursement proceeds with the supplier.

The court held that the plaintiff's conduct constituted civil fraud and willful misconduct, justifying summary dismissal without notice or termination pay.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed, and the TTC's counterclaim for $15,815 was allowed.

At a case management conference, the self-represented plaintiff and the defendants sought to schedule several motions.

The plaintiff intended to bring motions to set aside the appointment of the case management judge, amend the statement of claim, and compel production of documents.

The defendants intended to bring a motion to dispense with mediation.

The court established a timetable for the motions to be heard and noted preliminary issues regarding the representation of a minor plaintiff.

The plaintiffs brought a motion on consent to place the action in abeyance pursuant to s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The action involves complex issues of Aboriginal title relating to water and floodplains in Southern Ontario, which are also being addressed in a separate proceeding.

The court agreed that it would be disproportionate and inefficient to advance this action concurrently and ordered the matter placed in abeyance.