William S. Chalmers

The plaintiff, a person under disability, brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for approval of a settlement of his long-term disability claim against the defendant for an all-inclusive amount of $113,553.

The court found the settlement amount to be fair and reasonable.

However, the court adjourned the approval of the plaintiff's counsel's contingency fee, directing counsel to provide a breakdown of the all-inclusive settlement to ensure the fee was calculated only on the damages portion, as required by the retainer agreement.

The applicant insurer sought a declaration that the respondent insurer was required to contribute equally to the defence and indemnification of a pharmacist in an underlying negligence action.

Both insurers had issued policies covering the pharmacist, and both policies contained 'other insurance' clauses stating their coverage was excess to any other valid insurance.

The court found that both policies provided primary coverage for the same risk at the same layer.

Applying the principles of equitable contribution, the court concluded that the competing 'other insurance' clauses were irreconcilable.

Consequently, the respondent was ordered to share equally in the costs of defending and indemnifying the insured.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application for a compliance order against the respondent unit owners due to excessive hoarding and clutter in their unit.

The clutter created a significant fire and safety hazard, breaching the Condominium Act and the corporation's declarations.

The respondents failed to remedy the situation despite multiple opportunities and refused entry to the applicant.

The court granted the compliance order, permitting the applicant to enter the unit to remove the clutter at the respondents' expense, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The plaintiff requested a case conference to approve a discovery plan and establish a litigation timetable in a fraudulent conveyance action.

The self-represented defendants had failed to respond to the plaintiff's proposed discovery plan and sought to schedule motions to dismiss the action for delay and to strike the claim under Rule 21.

The court approved the plaintiff's discovery plan with modifications, noting the defendants must list privileged documents in Schedule B of their Affidavit of Documents.

The court declined to schedule the defendants' motions, finding the delay motion unfounded as the defendants themselves failed to respond to the discovery plan, and the Rule 21 motion unlikely to succeed and an inefficient use of judicial resources.

The plaintiffs brought an unopposed motion to vary a Mareva injunction to unfreeze the bank account of one of the corporate defendants to allow for the operation of a store.

The court granted the variation.

Additionally, counsel for several defendants brought a motion on consent to be removed as counsel of record, which was also granted, with directions for the transfer of trust funds subject to the Mareva injunction.

The plaintiff manufacturing company sued its freight broker and transport carrier for the $206,509 cost of cleaning up a chemical spill.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants breached a 'direct drive' delivery contract by picking up other loads, which blocked access to the plaintiff's shipment and forced the plaintiff's employee to unload a skid of white paint.

The employee punctured the paint tote with a forklift and then washed the spilled paint into a storm sewer.

The court found the freight broker breached the direct drive contract, but dismissed the action because the damages were caused solely by the plaintiff's employee's negligence in operating the forklift and responding to the spill, which was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment following the termination of his employment while on medical leave.

The defendant failed to file a Statement of Defence and was noted in default.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded the 60-year-old plaintiff, who had 30 years of service and a disability, 24 months' pay in lieu of notice.

The claims for lost benefits, vacation pay, and costs were adjourned for further evidence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing for default judgment against the defendants, who had been noted in default in an action for breach of trust and unjust enrichment regarding a property dispute.

The court noted that it was unclear whether the defendants had been served with the motion record.

Exercising its discretion under Rule 19.02(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court adjourned the motion and ordered the plaintiffs to serve the motion record on the defendants, emphasizing that it is better practice to notify defendants that a claim is about to be considered for judgment.

The applicant insurer brought an application without notice to pay additional life insurance proceeds into court pursuant to section 214 of the Insurance Act.

The insurer had previously paid $50,000 into court but subsequently determined an additional $25,000 was owing on the policy.

Due to adverse claims on the proceeds, the court granted leave for the insurer to pay the additional funds into court, discharging the insurer to the extent of the payment.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the registration and enforcement in Ontario of a final judgment granted by a Florida court.

The underlying action involved a real estate investment in Florida, which the parties settled.

The defendants defaulted on the settlement agreement, leading to the Florida judgment.

The defendants did not defend the Ontario action.

The court found that the Florida court properly assumed jurisdiction and that the judgment was not contrary to natural justice or public policy.

The motion was granted, and the foreign judgment was recognized and enforced.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement secured by a consent to judgment for $39,000.

The defendant defaulted after paying $1,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment on the consent.

The court granted the motion, ordering judgment for the remaining $38,000 plus $320 in costs.

The plaintiff commenced a personal injury action in 2000 after allegedly being struck by a falling box in the defendant's store.

Over 20 years, the action was marked by extreme delay, non-compliance with court orders, and the plaintiff's failure to attend defence medical examinations.

When the plaintiff failed to attend the peremptory trial date in September 2021, the defendant moved to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff had clear notice of the trial date and provided no explanation for her absence.

The action was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs fixed at $82,725.88.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the infant plaintiff's derivative claim under the Family Law Act.

The main injury claim of the infant's father had previously been dismissed after the plaintiffs failed to appoint new counsel or file a notice of intention to act in person.

The court held that a derivative claim cannot continue if the primary plaintiff's claim has been dismissed.

The motion was granted and the infant plaintiff's action was dismissed.

The trial in this matter was scheduled to commence on September 20, 2021.

Due to health issues involving counsel for the defendants, the court adjourned the trial to January 10, 2022, making the new date peremptory to the defendants.

The court also made orders regarding the re-drafting of pleadings and the production of outstanding documents by the defendants.

The issue of the plaintiffs' costs thrown away was reserved to the trial judge.

The plaintiffs previously obtained an ex parte interim Mareva injunction against the defendants.

The defendants retained counsel and sought time to respond, while filing an affidavit stating the injunction had frozen their business and personal accounts, preventing the operation of their mortgage brokerage and payment of personal expenses.

On consent, the court extended the injunction to September 20, 2021, and varied its terms to exempt the business accounts and allow the defendants to access personal accounts for living expenses.

The applicant, YMCA of Greater Toronto, sought to extend and amend a Norwich Order previously granted against several banks to investigate an alleged $2.2 million fraud involving the Canada-Ontario Job Grant program.

The applicant also sought to extend the time for service of its Statement of Claim against the alleged fraudsters to avoid tipping them off before the investigation was complete.

The court granted the extension of the Norwich Order and amended it to include accounts that transferred funds to or from the known accounts.

The court also granted the extension of time to serve the Statement of Claim, finding it in the interests of justice.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a compliance order against a tenant who engaged in bizarre, threatening, and dangerous behaviour, including exposing himself, threatening security with a knife, and vandalizing property.

The unit owner cooperated but opposed being held liable for costs.

The court validated service on the absent tenant, found his conduct breached the Condominium Act, the condominium's rules, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and ordered compliance.

The court also awarded $10,000 in costs to the applicant, holding both the tenant and the unit owner jointly and severally liable.

The plaintiffs sought an order extending a Mareva Injunction and Norwich Order, and for production of bank accounts.

The defendants sought a variance of the Mareva Injunction to unfreeze a bank account to allow business transactions in the ordinary course, prevent interference with third-party suppliers, and allow for the payment of legal expenses.

The court granted the relief sought by the parties on consent.

The respondent brought a motion to determine whether the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement regarding the assessment of accounts.

The matter came before the court but could not be accommodated for a full-day hearing.

The court adjourned the motion to a later date, noting that all materials had been served and uploaded.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the defendants' motion to enforce a settlement arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs' new counsel, retained shortly before the hearing, required time to finalize motion materials.

Despite the defendants' objection to the late request, the court granted a brief adjournment to prevent prejudice, ordering the plaintiffs to pay $500 in costs to the defendants.