Self-represented litigant

This endorsement from a case conference addressed procedural issues concerning examinations for discovery scheduled for a three-week period.

Key issues included confirming the discovery schedule for defendants, determining the order of examination between co-plaintiffs, and allocating discovery costs.

The court set the discovery schedule, ordered one plaintiff's counsel to examine witnesses first due to preparedness, and denied a request for an advance list of questions.

Costs were apportioned 3/4 to one plaintiff's clients and 1/4 to the self-represented plaintiff.

Lakhwinder S. Gill, a defendant and third-party claimant, moved for default judgment against Ravinder S. Chahal, a third party.

Chahal opposed the motion and sought to set aside the noting in default, which had been entered over five years prior.

The court applied the test under Rule 19.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering the delay by both parties, the lack of prejudice to Gill, and Chahal's proposed defence.

The court found Chahal's proposed defence, despite being from a self-represented litigant, was sufficient to respond to the claim.

The noting in default was set aside, and Chahal was ordered to file a statement of defence.

No further costs were awarded, as Chahal had already been ordered to pay costs for previous adjournments.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 24.01.

The plaintiff, a 71-year-old self-represented litigant, had experienced significant delays, including periods without counsel and difficulty obtaining her legal file.

The court found the overall delay inordinate but excused it, particularly the period since her second counsel's removal, due to her reasonable efforts to retain new counsel and her difficulties as a self-represented litigant.

The court also found that the plaintiff had rebutted the presumption of prejudice, as the defendant failed to establish actual prejudice.

The motion to dismiss was denied, but terms were imposed on the plaintiff to advance the action promptly.

The appellant mother, A.T., brought a motion to extend the time for filing an appeal against protection orders issued by the trial judge concerning her two children, A.T-W. and N.T. The trial judge had found the children in need of protection due to the mother's unfounded allegations of sexual abuse, mental health issues, and breaches of a supervision order, placing them with their respective fathers.

The motion judge applied the four-factor test for extending time for appeal: reasonable explanation for delay, prejudice to the respondent, merits of the appeal, and the justice of the case, with the children's best interests being paramount.

While the mother provided a reasonable explanation for the delay as a self-represented litigant dealing with a two-part judgment, the court found the appeal lacked merit and that allowing it would cause prejudice to the respondents and be contrary to the children's best interests by prolonging litigation.

The motion to extend time was dismissed.

The defendants moved to stay or dismiss the plaintiff's claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process due to its lack of material facts.

The self-represented plaintiff filed a written submission.

The court found the statement of claim deficient, as it only listed causes of action without providing any material facts, thereby failing to comply with Rules 25.02 and 25.06(1).

The court granted the plaintiff 60 days to amend the statement of claim to include the necessary material facts, failing which the claim would be dismissed.

The father and paternal grandmother brought a mid-trial motion to suspend spousal support payments to the self-represented mother due to her repeated and largely uncorroborated medical absences, which significantly delayed a protracted family trial concerning custody, access, and support.

The court found the mother's explanations for delays insufficient and noted the financial prejudice to the father, who was unlikely to be reimbursed for overpayments.

The motion was granted, temporarily suspending ongoing spousal support and limiting arrears enforcement, while also suspending the mother's child support obligations, to incentivize timely completion of the trial.

Nadire Atas sought two further orders in a s.140 application, which had already been merged into a February 2018 judgment and previously denied.

An urgent case management conference was held on March 26, 2019, at Ms. Atas's insistence, to address these requests.

The court found Ms. Atas's assertions about prior events to be false and her conduct vexatious, as she failed to adequately prepare and relitigated decided issues.

The court awarded costs of $1,000 to Gary Caplan's clients, payable by Ms. Atas, as an indemnity for the expense incurred due to her actions.

The defendants brought a joint motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim for failing to plead material facts to support the alleged causes of action, including breach of contract, negligence, public malfeasance, and intentional interference with economic relations.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented, also brought a cross-motion for an injunction.

The court found the Statement of Claim fundamentally deficient, lacking essential factual details.

Despite the deficiencies and prior warnings, the court struck the Statement of Claim but granted the plaintiff leave to amend within 30 days, acknowledging the plaintiff's self-represented status.

The plaintiff's motion for an injunction was dismissed as it failed to meet the requirements for injunctive relief.

Nominal costs were awarded against the plaintiff to two leading defendants.

This endorsement addresses the costs of Renata Mielczarek's motion for a further inspection by a Court-appointed Supervisor in an oppression remedy application.

The Applicant achieved substantial success in her motion, which sought to quantify appropriate compensation for oppression.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale against the Respondents (excluding Birwa Rashid), finding that the underlying oppression, coupled with the respondents' obstructive conduct and contribution to delays, justified a higher scale of costs.

The court also affirmed that the self-represented applicant's claimed hourly rate and time spent were reasonable and proportional.

The plaintiff, Silvy Joyce D'Souza, initiated a lengthy and complex action against her former landlords, their legal representatives, and other tenants, alleging various causes of action stemming from a landlord and tenant dispute.

The defendants requested a referral under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim sought to relitigate issues already decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board and dismissed on appeal by the Divisional Court, constituting a collateral attack on prior decisions.

The action was dismissed under Rule 2.1.01.

The plaintiff, Sae-Bin Im, sought an extension of time to file a statement of claim, while several defendants moved to dismiss the action for breach of a peremptory order and for delay.

The court found the plaintiff's explanation for non-compliance, including self-representation, involvement in other litigation, and medical issues (depression and anxiety), to be satisfactory and not intentional.

The court also found no significant prejudice to the sophisticated defendants, who were aware of the proceedings and could preserve evidence.

The court granted the plaintiff an extension to file the statement of claim and dismissed the defendants' motions to dismiss, emphasizing that the plaintiff's claim, though lengthy, was not frivolous or vexatious.

The Grand River Hospital brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim against it.

The plaintiff, self-represented, relied on an American orthopedic surgeon's expert report.

The court found the plaintiff's expert was not qualified to opine on Canadian hospital procedures or nursing/physiotherapy standards, and his report primarily attributed negligence to the doctors, not the hospital.

The expert failed to establish a causal link between alleged hospital failures and the plaintiff's injuries.

The plaintiff's complaints regarding customer service or minor issues without resulting harm were deemed insufficient to raise a triable issue of medical malpractice against the hospital.

The motion was granted, and the action against Grand River Hospital was dismissed with costs, while the action against the doctors continued.

The plaintiff, Zaka Ullah Khan, initiated an action against two law firms, Krylov & Company and Devry Smith Frank LLP, alleging fraud and conspiracy regarding the settlement of his personal injury tort action.

The plaintiff claimed the actual settlement amount was higher than what he received and that the defendants misappropriated funds.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing an absence of evidence to support the plaintiff's claims.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding no genuine issue for trial as the plaintiff's allegations were based on unsubstantiated beliefs and lacked evidentiary foundation.

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, sought costs against the respondent for motions concerning post-trial security for spousal support and a recusal motion.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicant for both sets of motions, totaling $3,037.80, to be enforced as spousal support.

The respondent had failed to provide costs submissions.

The respondent, Nadire Atas, made a request for an urgent case conference to address issues of bias and constitutional questions.

The court denied the request, directing that these matters be raised at the next scheduled case management conference in April 2019.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a nine-day Motion to Change (MTC) hearing, which was brought by the self-represented Respondent, Douglas Taylor, to increase his parenting time.

The court found Mr. Taylor to be the successful party, as he obtained orders for increased parenting time and other terms, including reimbursement for a cancelled vacation and the use of the children's proper surname.

The Applicant, Lynda Johnson, was found to have acted unreasonably in failing to support Mr. Taylor's parenting time.

Mr. Taylor's offers to settle were better than the outcome achieved at the hearing.

The court awarded Mr. Taylor $18,000 in all-inclusive costs, to be paid by Ms. Johnson, reflecting a fair, reasonable, and proportionate amount.

The defendants, Gene Simmons and Canadian Tire Centre, brought motions to dismiss the plaintiff's action due to his repeated failure to pay costs orders and non-compliance with court rules and orders.

The plaintiff, Byeongheon Lee, a self-represented litigant, had outstanding costs orders of $5,500 and $500, and had failed to attend multiple case conferences.

The court granted the motions, dismissing the action against Gene Simmons and Canadian Tire Centre, emphasizing the importance of abiding by civil procedure rules and court orders, even for self-represented litigants who have been afforded considerable accommodation.

The applicant sought exclusive possession of the parties' Ottawa home and a restraining order against the self-represented respondent.

The court granted the applicant interim exclusive possession of the home, finding that the respondent's psychological, emotional, and other abusive behaviour constituted "violence" under s. 24(3)(f) of the Family Law Act.

An interim restraining order was also issued, as the applicant had reasonable grounds to fear for her safety.

The respondent's cross-motion was adjourned due to his failure to properly file necessary financial and other documents.

The applicant's contempt motion against the respondent was dismissed.

Despite the respondent's success, the court found his behaviour unreasonable due to non-compliance with prior disclosure orders, failure to disclose relevant financial changes, and not making an offer to settle.

The applicant's motion was also deemed ill-considered as some allegations related to defunct orders or could have been addressed otherwise.

Applying the Serra principles, the court awarded the respondent reduced costs of $1,000, payable in installments, reflecting both his success and his unreasonable conduct.

The court considered dismissing the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, following requisitions from the defendants, on the grounds that the claim appeared frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The claim against one defendant was time-barred, and claims against two other defendants (Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and Ontario Ministry of Labour, sued for an OLRB decision) were against entities lacking legal status to be sued.

Despite the plaintiff's written submissions, which included unsubstantiated allegations and a misunderstanding of civil limitation periods, the court found the abusive nature of the claim clear on its face and dismissed the entire action.