Punitive damages

The plaintiff moved for certification of a class action against FedEx, alleging undisclosed and unsolicited fees for customs clearance services (Advancement Fee and Clearance Entry Fee) in violation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff, a non-commercial purchaser, received an invoice for these fees after being promised "free shipping," believing them to be government levies.

The court found that the claim disclosed viable causes of action under the CPA, including unsolicited services and unfair practices, and unjust enrichment.

It rejected FedEx's arguments regarding agency, territorial reach of the CPA, and the sufficiency of website disclosures.

The court also found the proposed class identifiable, common issues present, and a class action to be the preferable procedure given the small individual claims and the goals of judicial economy, access to justice, and behaviour modification.

The action was certified.

The Plaintiff, Barbara Wilds, sought substantial indemnity costs after partially succeeding in a wrongful dismissal action against 1959612 Ontario Inc. o/a Gibson Building Supplies, where she was awarded damages for wrongful dismissal and punitive damages.

The Defendant argued costs should be limited as the recovery was within Small Claims Court jurisdiction and success was divided.

The court found the action should have been commenced in Small Claims Court and limited the costs award to the maximum recoverable there ($5,250.00 plus disbursements), further reducing it by 25% due to divided success.

The Plaintiff's Rule 49 offer to settle was found not to trigger costs consequences as the judgment was not more favourable.

The Defendant was ordered to pay $6,000.00 in all-inclusive costs.

The defendant, Joseph Gavin Briggs, brought a motion for default judgment on his counterclaim against the plaintiffs, Joe Alessandro and Law Help Ltd. Briggs alleged misrepresentation, breach of duty, and unjust enrichment, stemming from Alessandro, an unlicensed individual, holding himself out as a paralegal and providing inadequate legal services, including entering unauthorized guilty pleas on Briggs' behalf.

Alessandro and Law Help Ltd. were noted in default on the counterclaim due to their failure to participate in the litigation process.

The court found Alessandro and Law Help Ltd. liable for intentional misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, and pierced the corporate veil to hold Alessandro personally liable.

The court awarded compensatory, aggravated, and punitive damages, and ordered the production of legal files.

The plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada, brought a motion for judgment seeking to recover unpaid credit card and overdraft balances, characterizing the debt as fraud to ensure survivability in bankruptcy.

The court granted judgment for the liquidated damages (unpaid credit card and overdraft amounts) but dismissed the claims for fraud and punitive damages, finding insufficient evidence of fraudulent intent and that the request for a fraud declaration was premature.

The court also noted that the action, being for less than $10,000, should have been brought in the Small Claims Court, and consequently, no costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The Estate of Hermina Fletcher sought punitive damages against Lindsey Coyle, who had previously been found liable for $130,000 in compensatory damages and sentenced to two years imprisonment for criminal negligence causing death.

The court considered the objectives of retribution, deterrence, and denunciation, and the fact that Coyle had already received a significant criminal sentence and lost her profession.

The motion for punitive damages was dismissed, with no order as to costs, as the combination of compensatory damages and the prison sentence was deemed sufficient to achieve the objectives.

Unifund Assurance Company brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement requiring Dieter Knoppke to pay $600,000.

Alex Krek's estate sought a continuation order and removal of an encumbrance from title.

The court granted Unifund's motion, ordering Knoppke to pay the settlement amount with 5% pre-judgment interest.

The court also granted the Krek estate's requests.

While acknowledging Knoppke's egregious conduct, the court declined to award punitive damages due to his absence and lack of instructions to counsel, opting instead to award full indemnity costs to Unifund and partial indemnity costs to the Krek estate.

The defendant, IBM Canada Ltd., brought a motion to strike certain pleadings from the plaintiff's Second Amended Statement of Claim.

The impugned pleadings alleged systemic age discrimination by IBM U.S. and referenced employment circumstances of IBM U.S. employees, which the plaintiff claimed were connected to his wrongful dismissal and age discrimination by IBM Canada.

The court dismissed IBM Canada's motion, finding the pleadings relevant to the claims of systemic discrimination and punitive damages, particularly given the alleged operational connection between IBM U.S. and IBM Canada regarding the plaintiff's employment decisions.

The dismissal was conditional on the plaintiff making proposed amendments to narrow the scope of the allegations.

This action concerned a Distribution Agreement between MJL Enterprises Inc. (plaintiff) and SAL Marketing Inc. (defendant) for MJL's software, iSTAR.

The plaintiff sought damages for alleged breach of contract, including failure to market the software, non-payment of invoices for development work, and copying of software features.

The defendant maintained it was a standard distribution agreement, the software was not marketable, invoices were not properly approved per the contract, and no copying occurred.

The court found no breach of the Distribution Agreement by the defendant, that the invoices were not issued in compliance with the contract, and that there was no evidence of software copying, misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, or breach of confidence.

All claims for damages were dismissed.

This is a motion for default judgment in a defamation action.

The plaintiff, Seyed Mansour Hosseini, sued the defendant, Hamid Gharagozloo, for publishing videos and statements online that falsely implicated him in the assassination of a spiritual leader and collaboration with the Iranian regime.

The defendant failed to file a defence after his anti-SLAPP motion was dismissed.

The court found the defendant liable for defamation, noting his malice and the egregious nature of the online publications.

The court awarded the plaintiff $400,000 in general and aggravated damages, and $180,000 in costs, but declined to issue an injunction for removal of content or a forced apology due to feasibility and futility concerns.

This case involves cross-motions in a family law dispute following a divorce order incorporating minutes of settlement.

The applicant sought to deduct alleged damages to the matrimonial home from the respondent's equalization and spousal support payment, and also sought punitive damages.

The respondent sought the immediate release of her $190,000 payment.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the damage claims were not properly before the Family Court as they were not pleaded and the applicant failed to comply with a condition precedent in the divorce order requiring a written estimate of deliberate damage exceeding $5,000 from an appraiser or realtor.

The respondent's motion for payment was allowed.

The plaintiffs, Li Ma, Yumei Zhang, and Homeland Trading Ltd., brought an action against the Township of Wainfleet seeking general and punitive damages, and declarations that a municipal bylaw (Bylaw No. 028-2013) and a subsequent order to destroy their orchard were void.

The bylaw designated diseased fruit trees as "local weeds" under the Weed Control Act.

The plaintiffs alleged the bylaw was passed in bad faith, improperly targeted them, and violated their natural justice rights.

The court dismissed Homeland Trading Ltd.'s claim for lack of standing and failure to plead pecuniary loss.

For Li Ma and Yumei Zhang, the court found the bylaw valid, within the Township's statutory authority, and not passed in bad faith or targeting the plaintiffs.

The court also found that the plaintiffs had ample notice and opportunity to appeal the order through the statutory appeal route, which they failed to utilize.

Consequently, all claims for damages and declarations were dismissed.

SureFire Dividend Capture LP (SDC) sought indemnification from Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance under a fidelity bond for losses incurred due to a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Brenda Smith, manager of Broad Reach Capital, LP (BRC), in which SDC had invested.

SDC claimed coverage under three insuring agreements (A)(1), (A)(4), and (B)(1)(b) of the Bond.

The court found that SDC failed to establish that its loss fell within the initial grant of coverage under any of the agreements, primarily because the stolen funds belonged to BRC, not SDC or its investors, and Brenda Smith was not an "Employee" of SDC as defined by the Bond for the purposes of SDC's direct claim.

The court also noted that SDC failed to disclose a material "in-kind" transfer of interests from other funds to SDC, which would have excluded coverage for that portion of the loss.

SDC's claim for punitive damages for bad faith was also dismissed.

The plaintiff, Ameresco Canada Inc., moved for default judgment against the defendant, Bernard Christopher, who was noted in default for failing to file a defence.

The defendant had defrauded the plaintiff of $911,528.44 through cyber fraud, by intercepting email communications and directing the plaintiff to wire payments to his personal account.

The plaintiff recovered $764,613.45.

The court granted default judgment, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The court awarded $90,000 in punitive damages, emphasizing the severity of cyber fraud and the need for disincentive.

Costs were fixed at $6,000, including disbursements and HST, noting that costs for prior procedural orders were not awarded.

The Applicant sought an injunction and damages against the Respondents for nuisance, trespass, and interference with a mutual right-of-way easement during a construction project on the Respondents' adjacent property.

The court found that the Respondents committed nuisance and repeated trespasses, which were not trivial, and awarded damages and punitive damages.

However, the court did not find actionable encroachment on the easement, concluding that temporary impediments did not constitute substantial interference.

An injunction was granted to prevent future trespass during the remaining construction.

The plaintiff's action against the defendants was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the costs payable by the plaintiff, Ms. Liddy, to the defendant, Ms. Mauro.

Ms. Mauro sought substantial indemnity costs of over $650,000, or partial indemnity then substantial indemnity costs of over $613,000, based on Ms. Liddy's unreasonable conduct, rejection of settlement offers, and pursuit of unsubstantiated allegations, including punitive damages.

Ms. Liddy argued for partial indemnity costs at no more than 50% of Ms. Mauro's fees, blaming the City of Vaughan defendants for delays and a mistrial.

The court found Ms. Mauro's offers reasonable and Ms. Liddy's conduct, particularly the persistent punitive damages claim without evidentiary support, reprehensible.

The court awarded Ms. Mauro $585,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, assessed on a partial indemnity scale until the start of trial and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter.

The plaintiff, Mohmmad Danesh, and the defendants by counterclaim, ReMax Crossroads Realty Inc. and Michael Bury, brought motions for summary judgment in a dispute arising from a failed condominium purchase.

The vendor, Elahe Vahed, argued that a second extension to the closing date was invalid due to fabrication and non-compliance with the Statute of Frauds.

The court found that Vahed breached the agreement of purchase and sale by failing to close on the extended date, rejecting her arguments regarding fabrication and the Statute of Frauds due to solicitor's authority and part performance.

Danesh was awarded damages for out-of-pocket expenses and the return of a deposit.

Vahed's counterclaims against Danesh, ReMax, and Bury for general and punitive damages were dismissed.

The defendant, ASG Technologies Group, Inc. (ASG), brought a motion to impose a discovery plan, which the plaintiff, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (Manulife), opposed, proposing its own version.

The primary dispute concerned the relevance and proportionality of various document categories requested by each party in a software licensing dispute.

The Master largely rejected Manulife's broad requests for "misconduct documents" and "valuation documents" related to ASG's other customers and internal financial data, finding them overbroad, disproportionate, or not sufficiently supported by the pleadings.

The Master also rejected ASG's requests for documents related to Manulife's internal dealings with its own customers regarding ASG's products.

The court imposed a discovery plan with specific, narrowed categories of documents to be produced and set deadlines for document exchange and examinations for discovery.

The respondent (Stanley Capobianco) brought a motion to strike specific paragraphs from the applicant's (Paul Offierski) Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, arguing they were irrelevant, argumentative, scandalous, or disproportionate, particularly concerning costs and casting the respondent in a bad light.

The applicant contended the impugned paragraphs were relevant and responsive to the respondent's claims for punitive damages, legal expenses, and property appraisal fees, and to demonstrate the respondent's conduct.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the impugned paragraphs were responsive to the respondent's claims, not solely related to costs, and did not create disproportional complexity, especially given the nature of the respondent's own pleadings.

The plaintiff, Richcraft Homes Ltd., initiated an action against several defendants, including Urbandale Corporation, Urbandale Construction Limited, and Lawrence Weinstein, seeking declaratory relief for oppressive conduct, breach of contract, and punitive damages related to land development projects.

The defendants brought motions under Rule 21 to strike Richcraft's claims, arguing they failed to plead material facts supporting a reasonable prospect of success.

The court granted the motions, finding that Richcraft did not demonstrate compensable injury or a likelihood of threatened oppressive conduct, nor an independent actionable wrong for punitive damages.

Leave to amend was denied due to the absence of proposed amendments or supporting evidence.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim for breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, and aggravated/punitive damages under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court struck the claims for breach of confidence and aggravated damages with leave to amend, finding that the breach of confidence claim failed to plead misuse to the plaintiff's detriment, and the aggravated damages claim lacked sufficient particulars of the conduct's effects.

The claims for invasion of privacy and punitive damages were not struck, as they were deemed sufficiently pleaded based on the alleged intentional entry into the plaintiff's home and removal of confidential documents.