Krista Ruth Chaytor

The defendants (Foodfest, Henry Ender, and Sue Ellen Ender) brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision that dismissed their summary judgment motion, which sought to dismiss the plaintiff's claims against them on the basis of limitation periods.

The court applied the strict two-part test for granting leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4).

It found no conflicting decisions on matters of principle and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order that transcended the immediate parties' interests.

The motion judge's finding that the discoverability of the conspiracy claims was a genuine issue requiring a trial was upheld.

Consequently, the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

Ozz Electric Inc., a subcontractor, brought a motion to amend its Statement of Claim to advance various claims against the project owner, The Corporation of the City of Kitchener.

The proposed amendments included claims that the City was liable under a Labour and Material Payment Bond, liable in negligence for economic loss due to project delays, and liable for contribution and indemnity for alleged deficient workmanship.

The court dismissed all proposed amendments, finding no legal basis for the City's liability under the bond, that the negligence claim for economic loss was insufficiently pleaded, and that the claim for contribution and indemnity lacked a tenable legal basis.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to Ozz Electric Inc. to bring a further motion to amend the negligence claim with proper pleading.

The University of Guelph moved to compel affiants of the University of Guelph Central Student Association (CSA), Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), and Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario (CFS-O) to re-attend cross-examination, answer objected questions, and produce documents.

The motion addressed seven outstanding refusals concerning the personal beliefs of a former executive, recommendations from a law firm (solicitor-client privilege), redactions to a memorandum and reports (solicitor-client and common-interest privilege), a tolling agreement (relevance), and redactions to settlement emails (common-interest privilege).

The court dismissed requests regarding personal beliefs and legal advice, upheld most redactions based on privilege, but ordered disclosure of the final executed tolling agreement and removal of certain redactions from settlement emails related to timing.

The defendants moved to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiffs in a fraud action.

The court found that the default judgment had been obtained after procedural irregularities, including the plaintiffs noting the defendants in default and obtaining judgment without notice while a motion to strike the statement of claim was pending and after the action had been dismissed as abandoned.

Relying on established authority, the court held that where a default judgment is obtained while a motion affecting the pleadings is before the court, the defendant is entitled to have the judgment set aside as of right without demonstrating a defence on the merits.

The court declined to require the defendants to pay security despite the plaintiffs’ concern about a potential bankruptcy affecting the fraud claim.

The judgment was set aside and procedural deadlines were imposed requiring the defendants to either bring their motion to strike or deliver a statement of defence within 30 days.

Following motions for security for costs brought by two defendants, the court addressed the costs of those motions.

The defendants had obtained security for costs orders but in amounts lower than requested.

The court considered the factors under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 1.04, 56.01, and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the moving parties were largely successful, reductions were warranted due to incomplete success and procedural issues related to timing of a statement of defence.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and instead fixed fair and reasonable partial indemnity costs payable by the plaintiff.

Defendants brought motions for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure against a foreign corporate plaintiff resident in Russia with no assets in Ontario.

The court confirmed the two‑stage framework for security for costs motions and held the defendants met the initial burden because the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate impecuniosity or other circumstances making a security order unjust, despite having substantial funds abroad.

The court exercised its discretion to order staged security for costs, including amounts related to pending motions to discharge a certificate of pending litigation.

The court also granted a sealing order over a document containing non‑party investors’ financial information and awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff for the confidentiality motion.