Karen E. Jolley

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking further disclosure from the defendant, including an unredacted bonus compensation document and details of expenses deducted from the bonus pool, in a wrongful dismissal action concerning unpaid bonuses.

The defendant had redacted information for relevance and commercial sensitivity.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the redacted information was not relevant to the pleaded issues at this stage and that its disclosure would cause significant harm to the defendant due to its sensitive business nature and private employee information.

The court noted that the plaintiff could re-bring the motion if further evidence from discovery established relevance.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff's representative to reattend discovery and answer numerous refused questions across four categories.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing the questions were irrelevant or privileged.

The court largely upheld the plaintiff's refusals, finding most questions irrelevant to the core issues of the case, such as the nature of the business relationship (franchise vs. license) or the plaintiff's subjective understanding of legal requirements.

Only one minor question regarding inventory was ordered to be answered.

The plaintiff, Tripsetter Inc., brought a motion seeking a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendants, 2161907 Alberta Ltd., Canopy Growth Corporation, and Justin Farbstein, and answers to undertakings and a refusal.

The core dispute concerned whether the parties' relationship was a franchise or a license, impacting disclosure obligations under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The court ordered the production of a Franchise Disclosure Document and a Financial Projections Document, finding them relevant to the nature of the relationship and the defendants' disclosure exemption arguments.

However, the plaintiff's general request for a further affidavit of documents and its requests regarding the undertakings and refusal were dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendant, Bombardier Inc., brought a motion seeking an order for the plaintiff, Triple-K Consult Ltd., to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents.

Bombardier argued it had a contractual right to audit the plaintiff's activities to verify compliance with their sales representative agreement and applicable laws before commissions were payable.

The plaintiff contended it had complied with the audit request and that further demands were beyond the contractual scope.

The court largely dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that the plaintiff had substantially complied and that many of the requested documents were not relevant or better pursued through discovery.

The court ordered only the production of supporting documents for $35,000 in expenses claimed by the plaintiff's principal.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to dismiss the action for delay and to discharge a construction lien and certificate of action, arguing the lien was registered out of time.

The court dismissed the motion to dismiss for delay, finding the delay was not inordinate, inexcusable, or intentional, and did not cause prejudice.

The court also dismissed the motion to discharge the lien, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the date the contract was abandoned, which was crucial for determining the timeliness of the lien registration.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff in a slip and fall action brought a motion seeking answers to undertakings, refusals, and questions taken under advisement.

The parties resolved most issues, but the court upheld the defendant's refusal to produce accident response training modules, finding them irrelevant to liability or damages.

The court also ruled that the plaintiff improperly included privileged mediation brief excerpts in her motion record, ordering their removal and a sealing order.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis, reduced due to the improper inclusion of privileged materials.

The plaintiff sought to amend her statement of claim to correct a misnomer, substituting 'John Doe' with 'Dr. Hung-Tat Lo' as a defendant in a motor vehicle accident claim.

The court considered whether the proposed defendant would have objectively known the litigation was directed at him, applying the 'litigating finger' test.

Despite discrepancies in the pleaded facts and the proposed defendant's account, the court found that he would have recognized himself as the intended target.

The court also determined that the delay in bringing the motion was not inordinate or unexplained.

The motion to amend the statement of claim was granted.

A law firm, Teplitsky Colson, and its lawyer, Stephen Brunswick, brought a motion to be removed as lawyers of record for the plaintiff, Corey Libfeld, citing an irreparable breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The firm argued that the plaintiff failed to provide instructions, made accusations of scheming and fiduciary duty violations, and threatened legal action.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting no irreparable breakdown existed and that the firm continued to act on other matters.

The court found that the firm had demonstrated good and justifiable cause for removal, noting the severe deterioration of trust and communication, and granted the motion, dismissing the plaintiff's opposition.

The plaintiff brought a motion without notice to the foreign defendant, Taizhou Chuangju Valve Co. Ltd., seeking orders for substituted service, validation of service, and an extension of time for service of the statement of claim.

The motion followed an unsuccessful attempt to serve the foreign defendant via the Hague Convention.

The court dismissed the request for validation of service, finding no evidence of evasion, but granted substituted service by regular mail and extended the time for service.

The court also declined to award costs, noting the motion was brought without notice and there was no evidence of deliberate evasion by the foreign defendant.

The defendant R.B. & R. Cartage Inc. ("RB&R") brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay and for the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a 2018 court order.

The action arose from an oil spill in 2004.

The court found that the plaintiffs were not in breach of the order to set the action down for trial, as a trial record had already been filed.

While the plaintiffs failed to serve expert reports or bring a productions motion, these defaults did not warrant dismissal.

Applying the test for dismissal for delay under Rule 24.01, the court determined that the delay was not intentional and that the plaintiffs rebutted the presumption of prejudice, as relevant medical evidence was available and liability had been admitted.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the plaintiffs were directed to file an amended trial record to proceed to trial.

This decision on a reference determined the distribution of net proceeds from the sale of a jointly purchased property between two cousins, Seyed (plaintiff) and Peiman (defendant).

Seyed sought an equal split, while Peiman claimed a larger share based on alleged lost opportunity costs, small claims court action costs, property management fees, general contractor fees, and a payment differential.

The court found that Seyed was not contractually obligated to obtain a mortgage and denied Peiman's claims for lost opportunity costs, property management fees, and late payment interest.

It partially allowed general contractor fees and allowed small claims court costs to be shared.

Ultimately, the court concluded that Seyed had not underpaid his required contribution.

The plaintiff sought to continue a temporary certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a property, alleging mortgage fraud and lack of notice regarding a foreclosure judgment.

The court reviewed a more complete record and found that the plaintiff's claims were not supported by the evidence.

The plaintiff had obtained the second mortgage, defaulted on payments, was aware of the foreclosure action, and had retained counsel regarding the claim and subsequent notice to vacate.

The court concluded that any claim the plaintiff had to an interest in the property was extinguished by the 2016 foreclosure judgment.

The motion to continue the CPL was denied, and the temporary CPL was discharged.

The plaintiffs successfully moved to set aside a dismissal order that resulted from their former lawyer's (Mr. Chang) negligence, including failure to attend court, respond to motions, and communicate with clients.

This decision addresses the costs of that motion and previous costs awarded against the plaintiffs, which they sought to recover from Mr. Chang and his firm, Bougadis Chang LLP.

The court found Mr. Chang's conduct warranted a costs award against him and his firm, fixing costs at $55,658.40 for the plaintiffs and $3,000 for defendant Ping Lee, both payable by Mr. Chang and Bougadis Chang LLP.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to amend his statement of claim to include constructive dismissal allegations, specific document productions, withdrawal of a jury notice, and dispensation from mandatory mediation.

The court partially granted leave to amend the statement of claim, allowing some new paragraphs while denying others deemed irrelevant or vexatious.

Specific document productions were largely ordered, including the HR file, EI decision, and relevant Executive Committee minutes, but a prosecutorial viability opinion was deemed privileged.

The motion to withdraw the jury notice was granted, but the request to dispense with mandatory mediation was denied.

The plaintiff moved to set aside an administrative dismissal of its action.

The court considered the factors for setting aside such dismissals, including explanation for delay, promptness of the motion, inadvertence, and prejudice.

While there were periods of unexplained delay, the court found the overall delay explained, particularly given a consent timetable order.

The motion was brought promptly, and the alleged prejudice due to a witness's age was not directly attributable to the delay.

The court exercised its discretion to restore the action to the trial list, subject to an aggressive timetable, but denied costs to the plaintiff due to its significant prior inaction and non-compliance with the timetable.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order for potentially destructive examination of a fire-damaged dishwasher to identify its precise components and manufacturers.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing the request was premature and could prejudice their ability to add parts manufacturers.

The court found insufficient evidence that destructive testing was the only way to identify the dishwasher and its parts.

It ordered the defendants to provide a list of potential parts manufacturers so the plaintiffs could notify them and invite participation in testing.

Both the defendants' motion for destructive testing and the plaintiffs' cross-motion for a further affidavit of documents and discovery plan were dismissed as premature.

The plaintiff, Vrancor Development Group Inc., brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a property in Burlington, Ontario.

Vrancor alleged an oral joint venture agreement with the defendants, Marko Juricic, Brooklyn Contracting Inc., and Laurentian Business Centre Ltd., for the property's development, claiming breach of trust and fiduciary duty when the defendants closed on the property without Vrancor and transferred title to a company controlled by Juricic.

The defendants contended that discussions never materialized into a binding agreement.

Applying the test for CPLs, the court found a triable issue regarding Vrancor's claimed interest in the land, noting that the CPL would preserve the status quo given Vrancor's claim for a proprietary interest rather than monetary damages.

The plaintiff noted several defendants in default.

The Vaughan Defendants and Antonio Gentile brought motions to set aside the noting in default.

The plaintiff argued that a motion to strike the statement of claim was not a step in defending the action, and that statements of defence were still required.

The court found that serving a notice of motion to strike the claim constitutes a step in the proceeding, making the noting in default irregular.

Additionally, the defendants met the criteria under Rule 19.03 for setting aside default.

The court set aside the noting in default for all defendants and awarded partial indemnity costs of $7,000 to both the Vaughan Defendants and Antonio Gentile, payable by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff moved for a status hearing, seeking a timetable and an extension to set the matter down for trial.

The court found the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for delay, including settlement discussions and other motions, and that the defendant would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

A timetable was imposed, extending the deadline to set the action down for trial.

However, the court also ordered the plaintiff to pay two substantial outstanding costs orders totaling approximately $55,000 by a specified date, failing which the defendant could seek an order dismissing the action without notice.

No costs were awarded for the current motion.

The plaintiffs brought two motions.

The first sought further document production and answers to undertakings/refusals regarding limestone supplied to their property.

The second sought to vary a previous order (February 13, 2019) allowing the defendants to take stone samples, alleging fraud and new evidence.

The court found that the defendants had largely complied with undertakings and dismissed the non-undertakings aspect of the first motion.

For the second motion, the court determined that the plaintiffs failed to prove fraud on a balance of probabilities, that the alleged fraud was not material, and that the plaintiffs did not exercise due diligence, as the information was largely available to them previously.

Both motions brought by the plaintiffs were dismissed, and the previous inspection order was amended to allow a different qualified stonemason to attend due to delay.

Costs were awarded to the defendants.