Karen E. Jolley

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff, a corporate entity, to post security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d), alleging insufficient assets in Ontario.

The court found that the plaintiff, a sole-purpose corporation that had sold its only asset, indeed had insufficient assets.

The plaintiff failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold for demonstrating impecuniosity, as it did not provide robust financial disclosure regarding its principal's personal assets or borrowing ability.

As impecuniosity was not established, the plaintiff was required to show a good chance of success at trial; however, the court found the merits to be neutral due to significant credibility issues and a potential limitations defence.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's argument of delay in bringing the motion, finding no prejudice.

Consequently, the motion for security for costs was granted, with the plaintiff ordered to post security in several installments for past and future litigation steps, and to pay the defendant's costs of the motion.

The self-represented plaintiffs' lengthy statement of claim, alleging various torts including civil conspiracy, was struck by the court.

The defendants had sought particulars and inspection, to which the plaintiffs did not respond.

The court found the claim replete with evidence and scandalous/vexatious allegations, lacking necessary particulars for conspiracy.

The claim was struck with leave to amend within 60 days, conditional on the plaintiffs paying the defendants' partial indemnity costs of $3,426.96.

This motion concerned the plaintiffs' application for leave to amend their statement of claim.

The court addressed numerous issues with the proposed pleading, including the inclusion of evidence, argument, hyperbole, and personal attacks, contrary to Rule 25.06(1).

The defendants challenged specific footnotes and paragraphs, arguing they did not contain material facts.

The court largely agreed with the defendants, ordering the removal of many challenged sections, including those related to a prior settlement with a non-party, procedural history, and speculative concerns.

The court also addressed the plaintiffs' failure to properly blackline amendments and provide costs outlines.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the defendants.

Both parties sought an order for anonymization (use of initials/pseudonyms) and a publication ban on identifying information, explicitly not seeking a sealing order.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for various torts including sexual assault and invasion of privacy, stemming from the defendant allegedly taking an intimate photo without consent.

The defendant did not oppose the plaintiff's motion if granted the same relief, but the plaintiff opposed the defendant's motion.

Applying the Sherman Estate test, the court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that protecting victims of sexual misfeasance is an important public interest and anonymization was necessary and proportionate to prevent serious risk to her dignity.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, holding that reputational harm from allegations of sexual misconduct does not meet the "important public interest" threshold for anonymization under Sherman Estate, as such interests are personal and private, not affecting human dignity in the same way.

The defendants Gabriel Chartrand and Boss Man Limited brought a motion for an order requiring the self-represented plaintiff, Oslyn Lewis, to post security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a), (b), and (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants argued the plaintiff resided outside Ontario, had a duplicative proceeding, and that the action was frivolous/vexatious with insufficient assets to pay costs.

The court found no evidence the plaintiff resided outside Ontario, and the earlier duplicative action had been discontinued.

While the plaintiff had insufficient assets, the court, referencing a prior motion to strike the claim (Lewis v. Chartrand, 2022 ONSC 3055), determined the claim was not frivolous or vexatious.

Consequently, the motion for security for costs was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend his statement of claim to include a claim for human rights damages, which he had initially pursued before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The HRTO application was dismissed after the defendant successfully argued that all issues, including human rights allegations, should be heard in the civil action.

The defendant subsequently opposed the amendment in the civil action, citing abuse of process and the expiry of the limitation period.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding it would be unfair to deny the amendment given the defendant's prior position.

The court held that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but rather sought a different remedy arising from the same factual matrix originally pleaded, thus not being statute-barred.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

This decision addresses cross-motions by the plaintiffs (Hood) and defendants (Civiero) to compel answers to refused questions during examinations for discovery in a dispute over joint venture real estate projects.

The court ruled on the relevance and proportionality of various categories of questions, including those related to income, financial documents, potential witnesses, and the nature of agreements.

Key issues included the disclosure of personal expenses run through a joint company, the production of deleted text messages, and the privilege associated with the payment of legal fees.

The court also addressed requests for further discovery time, granting limited additional time to both parties with specific conditions.

The plaintiff, in a wrongful dismissal action, brought a motion seeking unredacted production of internal investigation documents (complaints, whistleblower report, and investigation report) that the defendant bank relied upon to justify the plaintiff's for-cause termination.

The defendant had produced redacted versions, citing confidentiality.

The court ordered the production of the unredacted documents, finding that documents incorporated by reference into pleadings should not be redacted, and the defendant failed to establish that disclosure would cause considerable harm or infringe public interests under the Wigmore test.

The court emphasized that the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighed any interest in protecting the identity of complainants in this employment context, and that PIPEDA was not a bar to disclosure required by court rules.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the self-represented plaintiff, seeking $151,971.35 based on the plaintiff's failure to pay prior costs awards and alleging the action was frivolous or vexatious.

The court found that the plaintiff's undisputed failure to pay prior costs totaling $123,401.10 was a valid ground under Rule 56.01(1)(c).

However, the court did not find the action frivolous or vexatious under Rule 56.01(1)(e).

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that an order for security would be unjust.

The court clarified that Rule 56 is intended to secure future costs, not to enforce payment of historic costs.

Consequently, the court ordered the plaintiff to post $10,000 in security within 60 days and an additional $5,000 at least 60 days before his summary judgment motion.

No costs were awarded for the motion itself due to the defendants' limited success and lack of a bill of costs.

The defendants and third parties brought motions to dismiss three related actions for delay, citing the plaintiffs' prolonged inaction over several years.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for a status hearing and leave to amend their statement of claim.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the significant delay and did not rebut the presumption of non-compensable prejudice to the defendants, particularly due to the death of a key witness.

Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all actions for delay and dismissed the plaintiffs' cross-motion.

The defendants sought an urgent 90-day stay of a writ of possession obtained by the plaintiffs over their home, along with a notice to vacate.

They challenged fees included in the plaintiffs' mortgage discharge statement, arguing they violated the Interest Act.

The defendants wished to return to the home to refinance or sell it within the stay period.

The court granted the 90-day stay with conditions, finding no prejudice to the plaintiffs and noting that the stay would allow the defendants to challenge the disputed fees.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs.

This decision addresses a reference ordered by Kimmel, J. to resolve disputes between a Landlord (2356802 Ontario Corp.) and a Tenant (285 Spadina SPV Inc.) regarding the Tenant's use of a $3,164,000 construction allowance.

The Landlord sought reimbursement for funds allegedly misspent on non-Landlord's Work.

The Tenant, through Ronald Hitti (also a respondent), argued against the need for accounting and, alternatively, that all funds were properly used.

The court found that the Tenant failed to adequately account for a significant portion of the allowance, ordering 285 Spadina SPV Inc. to reimburse $1,501,139.64 and Ronald Hitti personally to reimburse $3,500.

The plaintiff, Tripsetter Inc., brought a motion seeking leave to add Tweed Inc. and Jurgen Schreiber as defendants, alleging they are "franchisor's associates" under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

The proposed defendants objected, arguing the claim was out of time due to a lack of notice of rescission and that the proposed pleading failed to establish the necessary control for a franchisor's associate.

The court found that the Act does not require notice of rescission to be given to an alleged franchisor's associate for a claim for damages to proceed.

It also determined that the limitation period argument was not clear-cut and could be argued at trial, as the plaintiff's knowledge of Tweed's full involvement only came to light during discovery.

The court found the proposed pleading, including the "de facto franchisor" concept, to be sufficient for the purpose of a pleadings amendment motion, noting that amendments are to be read generously.

The defendants, Manulife Financial and Accenture Inc., brought a motion to declare the plaintiff a person under disability for the purpose of the action and to appoint the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) as his litigation guardian.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented, opposed the motion, asserting his capacity to manage the litigation.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's medical records, his own statements regarding his mental health, and his litigation conduct, which included refusing disability benefit payments based on conspiracy theories and an inability to understand legal implications.

The court found the plaintiff to be mentally incapable with respect to the issues in the litigation and appointed the PGT as his litigation guardian, emphasizing that this finding was limited to his litigation capacity and not a general finding of incapacity.

The self-represented plaintiffs brought a motion seeking various discovery-related relief against Bridgepoint Hospital, primarily requesting an order for an in-person examination of Bridgepoint's representative due to delayed answers to written interrogatories.

The court addressed issues concerning the production of hospital policies (infection control and other), X-rays and imaging, and the requirement for a supplementary affidavit of documents.

The court denied the request for an in-person examination, directing that follow-up questions be submitted via written interrogatory.

Orders were made for Bridgepoint to produce specific policies by set deadlines, list unavailable documents (such as X-rays) in Schedule C of its affidavit of documents, and provide sworn answers to all interrogatories.

This motion addressed three discovery-related issues: production of information concerning other employees of the defendant V&N GTA Landscaping Inc. (GTA), production of GTA's policy of insurance, and setting aside a certificate of non-attendance obtained against the plaintiff.

The first two issues were resolved by agreement between the parties.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to set aside the certificate of non-attendance, finding no prejudice to the plaintiff in attending discovery without prior surveillance information and that the agreed-upon discovery schedule did not entitle the plaintiff to complete all undertakings and refusals before her own examination.

The applicant, J. Lang Management Inc., brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) over the "Jordon Lands" based on a contractual term in an asset management agreement.

This term stipulated that the respondents would grant a mortgage over the Jordon Lands to secure asset management fees if the applicant had a reasonable apprehension of non-payment.

The respondents argued the fees were not owed and that the applicant had provided no valuable services.

The court found that the applicant had raised a triable issue regarding its interest in the land and that granting the CPL was just and equitable.

The court rejected the respondents' proposed alternative security, emphasizing the importance of upholding the specific security terms negotiated in the commercial agreement.

The applicant, J. Lang Management Inc., brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) over the Jordon Lands, asserting a contractual right to a mortgage over the property to secure asset management fees.

The respondents opposed, arguing the fees were not earned or due.

The court found that the applicant raised a triable issue regarding its interest in the land and that the balance of equities favored granting the CPL.

The respondents' offer of alternative security was rejected as it would effectively rewrite the parties' negotiated commercial agreement and diminish the applicant's bargained-for protection.

In this wrongful dismissal action, both parties brought motions.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend his statement of claim to include a claim for 2.5% of gross profits and to plead bad faith litigation conduct for moral damages, and also sought further document production.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to compel the plaintiff to authorize his former counsel to deliver a file from a prior wrongful dismissal claim.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend his pleading, affirming that bad faith litigation conduct can support a claim for moral damages in the employment context.

However, the plaintiff's request for division-specific gross profit documents was dismissed as irrelevant to his pleaded claim for company-wide gross profit and due to the defendants' assertion of no further documents.

The plaintiff's request for a further and better affidavit of documents was partially granted, requiring the defendants to provide an unaltered bonus plan (with redacted employee names) and a Schedule C for purged documents.

The defendants' cross-motion for the former counsel's file was dismissed, primarily due to lack of relevance (as similar fact evidence was not pleaded) and solicitor-client privilege.

Due to mixed success, each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The defendants brought a motion to strike various paragraphs from the plaintiff's statement of claim, alleging they were prejudicial, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff's action arose from his acrimonious departure from an accounting partnership, seeking an accounting, declarations of bad faith and oppressive conduct, and damages.

The motion sought to strike paragraphs related to a request for trial together with a civil assault action, allegations of reprisal and false sexual assault claims, a complaint filed with CPA Ontario, and the nature of departure negotiations.

The court dismissed the motion to strike paragraphs concerning the request for trial together and the reprisal/assault allegations, finding they could support a claim for breach of the duty of good faith.

However, the court granted the motion in part regarding the CPA Ontario complaint, striking those references due to inadmissibility under the CPA Ontario Act and public policy protecting regulatory complaints.

The motion to strike paragraphs on departure negotiations was also dismissed, as the defendants failed to prove settlement privilege and the allegations could support a breach of contract claim.

Due to mixed success, each party was ordered to bear their own costs.