William S. Chalmers

Following the granting of the plaintiff's motion for an injunction, the parties reached an agreement on costs.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff fixed at $40,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, on consent.

The parties sought costs following a motion where the plaintiff successfully amended her statement of claim but was unsuccessful in striking the jury, and the defendants successfully obtained an order for further medical assessments.

The court found the defendants were seeking an indulgence for the medical assessments and were not entitled to costs for that portion.

The defendants were awarded $750 in costs for successfully opposing the motion to strike the jury.

The self-represented plaintiff in a medical malpractice action brought a motion seeking leave to amend his Statement of Claim for an eighth time, leave to examine non-parties, and an order compelling the production of documents.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendments had no chance of success, were presumptively prejudicial due to delay, and constituted an abuse of process.

The court also denied leave to examine non-parties and compel document production, as the plaintiff had not yet conducted an examination for discovery of the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for unpaid invoices.

The corporate defendants consented to judgment, leaving the issue of the personal liability of the sole director, who signed cheques in a trade name that were returned for non-sufficient funds.

The court found the director personally liable under the Bills of Exchange Act because the cheques did not display the name of the legal corporate entity, and signing in a representative capacity using only a trade name does not exempt the signer from personal liability.

Summary judgment was granted against the director for $140,621.52.

The plaintiff real estate law firm sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from terminating its access to 'Conveyancer', a mission-critical software platform.

The defendants had terminated access after learning the plaintiff was developing a competing software product.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding a prior commitment not to terminate and good faith dealings.

The court also found the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm from the inability to close transactions, and the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The injunction was granted until the plaintiff transitioned to its new software or December 31, 2021.

The plaintiffs appealed a Master's interlocutory orders dismissing their motions to remove the defendant's counsel of record and for security for costs.

The plaintiffs argued the defendant's counsel had a conflict of interest because he previously articled at the firm representing the plaintiffs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal regarding the removal of counsel, finding the appeal was out of time and, in any event, the Master did not err in allowing the counsel to argue the motion despite being an affiant, nor in refusing to remove him given the lack of confidential information possessed.

The appeal regarding security for costs was remitted back to the Master because no reasons had been provided for its dismissal.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a settlement after the plaintiff's counsel communicated acceptance of an offer to settle, which the plaintiff subsequently rescinded.

The court established a timetable for the motion to enforce the settlement and noted that the plaintiff's counsel intended to bring a motion to be removed as solicitor of record.

The applicant brought an application against the respondents.

The court previously determined that one of the respondents was a party under disability and adjourned the matter pending the appointment of a litigation guardian.

At a subsequent case conference, the court was advised that no litigation guardian had been appointed.

The court ordered that the application remain adjourned sine die until a litigation guardian is appointed, and scheduled a further case conference.

The applicant sought directions at a case conference regarding the respondents' failure to produce bank records as required by a prior court order.

The applicant claimed no statements were produced, while the respondents claimed full compliance.

The court directed the respondents to produce the unredacted bank statements relating to the receipt and disbursement of the funds in issue by a specified date, noting that a judge at a case conference has jurisdiction to make procedural and interlocutory orders under Rule 50.13(6).

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside previous orders dismissing his request for a Mareva injunction and sought a Mareva injunction and an order for the preservation of property.

The dispute arose from an informal loan agreement where the plaintiff advanced funds in Chinese currency in exchange for repayment in Canadian dollars.

The court set aside the previous orders based on new evidence obtained during cross-examinations, where the defendant admitted owing $2,220,000.

The court found a strong prima facie case and a real risk of asset dissipation given the impending sale of the defendant's home.

The Mareva injunction was granted subject to the plaintiff providing an undertaking as to damages, but the motion for preservation of property was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought clarification of an endorsement that partially approved a $10,000,000 medical malpractice settlement on behalf of a minor.

The court convened a case conference and agreed to minor edits regarding the names of medical professionals and the exact amount of proposed counsel fees.

The court also clarified the net recovery amount for the minor's parents, which could be used for a property purchase, and the distribution of the structured and non-structured settlement funds.

The court remained seized of the matter pending the final disposition of the proposed counsel fee and the application for guardianship of property.

The applicant brought an application under the Evidence Act and Canada Evidence Act to compel the respondent to attend an examination for a proceeding in the United States District Court.

The court ordered the respondent to attend the examination via videoconference, conditional upon the applicant delivering $7,500 in attendance money and a protective order.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the respondent in the fixed amount of $1,000.

The self-represented defendant requested a case conference to dispute a recently signed consent order dismissing the action, alleging he did not agree to waive the 30-day appeal period and accusing plaintiff's counsel of switching signature pages and the court of bias.

The court maintained that the signed consent was valid and the order had been entered.

The court directed the defendant to bring a formal motion on notice if he wished to set aside the order.

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

The deceased had designated his girlfriend as the primary beneficiary, but the estate trustee contested the designation.

The court found that the requirements of s. 214 were met, as the insurer admitted liability and there were adverse claimants.

The application was granted and the insurer was ordered to pay the proceeds into court.

The applicant sought an order to register and enforce a Certificate of Costs issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia against the respondents.

The underlying British Columbia action involved a dispute over the management of a company, resulting in a judgment and an award of special costs against the respondents due to reprehensible conduct.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the British Columbia court had a real and substantial connection to the litigation and properly exercised jurisdiction.

As the respondents established no applicable defences, the court granted the order to register and enter the Certificate of Costs in Ontario.

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing for default judgment against the defendant.

The plaintiff had invested $105,000 for a 7% interest in the defendant's business based on representations about its profitability.

The business closed shortly after the investment, and the defendant failed to return the funds as required by their agreements.

The court found the defendant liable for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation, awarding the plaintiff $105,000 for the return of the investment, $28,050 in monthly compensation, and $7,000 in costs.

At a pre-trial conference for a property ownership dispute, the court addressed trial management issues to ensure readiness for a September 2021 trial.

The court set deadlines for the defendants to provide a redrafted statement of defence, finalize their position on the joint document brief, and answer outstanding undertakings regarding the property's income and expenses.

The court noted that failure to provide the undertakings could result in the plaintiff seeking to strike the defence at trial.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for court approval of a $10,000,000 settlement arising from a medical malpractice claim involving severe birth injuries to the minor plaintiff.

The minor plaintiff sustained permanent neurological injuries, including cerebral palsy, requiring 24-hour care for the rest of her life.

The court approved the settlement allocation for the minor, her parents, and OHIP, finding it fair and reasonable given the significant litigation risks regarding standard of care and causation.

The court also authorized the parents to use a portion of their settlement funds to immediately purchase a wheelchair-accessible home, while reserving its decision on the proposed $3,136,500 counsel fee pending input from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The plaintiff forensic accounting firm brought an action for unpaid professional fees against a former client and her lawyer.

The client alleged there was an oral agreement capping the fees at $40,000, and brought a crossclaim against her lawyer for professional negligence, alleging he failed to secure her ex-husband's assets during her family law dispute.

The court found no credible evidence of an agreement to limit the accounting fees and ordered the client and lawyer to pay the outstanding balance.

The court dismissed the crossclaim, finding the lawyer did not breach the standard of care, the alleged negligence did not cause the loss, and the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff, a general contractor, commenced an action against the defendant mechanical subcontractor regarding a construction project.

The defendant had previously commenced a construction lien action which was referred to a Master for trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to refer this action to the same Master to be tried with or immediately following the lien action, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The court granted the consent order.