Justin P. Baichoo

Trisura Guarantee Insurance Company brought a motion for a declaration that its perfected security interest under the Personal Property Security Act (PPSA) had priority over any solicitor's charging order that might be obtained by BPR Litigation Lawyers, the former lawyers for Unimac Group Ltd. The court dismissed the motion, finding that the PPSA does not apply to solicitors' charging orders.

Furthermore, the court held that the common law 'first in time' rule does not apply to solicitors' charging orders due to their equitable nature and purpose.

Trisura's indemnity agreement with Unimac did not preclude BPR from seeking a charging order against funds recovered or preserved through their instrumentality.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action where the plaintiff was awarded $20,904, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $67,959 or partial indemnity costs of $57,082.

The court rejected the claim for substantial indemnity costs, finding the defendant's conduct did not warrant them.

The court also declined the defendant's request to deny costs under Rules 57.05 or 76.13, noting that proceeding by summary judgment achieved the same efficiencies as the Simplified Procedure.

Considering proportionality and the plaintiff's limited success, the court awarded the plaintiff total costs of $23,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, a 14-year employee, was terminated for failing to provide a doctor's note in a timely manner while on sick leave.

She brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that while the plaintiff breached a reasonable company policy, summary dismissal was a disproportionate response.

The court determined the appropriate notice period was 10 months, but reduced it to 6 months because the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages by not seeking alternative employment for 15 months.

The court dismissed the claim for punitive and moral damages, finding the employer did not act maliciously.

The plaintiff was awarded $20,904.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment and to declare the plaintiff's construction lien expired.

The court refused to set aside the default judgment, finding that although service of the statement of claim was technically defective, it came to the defendant's attention in a timely manner.

Furthermore, the defendant failed to provide a plausible excuse for the default or credible evidence of an arguable defence on the merits.

However, the court granted the motion to declare the construction lien expired, as the plaintiff had failed to set the action down for trial within the two-year period required by section 37 of the Construction Lien Act, and a registrar's default judgment does not satisfy this requirement.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against a corporate plaintiff that admitted it was no longer operating and likely lacked assets in Ontario.

The plaintiff argued that security should not be ordered because the defendant’s counterclaim exceeded the value of the claim and arose from the same facts.

The court held that the existence or size of a counterclaim is not determinative and does not bar security for costs where the statutory grounds under Rule 56.01 are met.

The plaintiff’s principal offered a personal undertaking to cover costs, but the court found insufficient evidence of assets to make the undertaking adequate security.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $58,000 as security for costs and awarded motion costs to the defendant.

Following an unsuccessful motion by certain defendants to set aside a noting in default, the court addressed costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis totaling $6,796.95 inclusive of fees and HST.

The court declined to award costs at that level and instead fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Costs of $4,570.00 plus HST were ordered payable by specific defendants to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion for contempt after the defendant failed to comply with a litigation timetable order.

The defendant eventually provided the required productions, rendering the contempt motion moot, but the parties disputed costs.

The court found that the defendants' counsel had disregarded the timetable order and that the plaintiff's counsel had made every effort to follow up before bringing the motion.

The court awarded the plaintiff $2,500 in costs.