Larry M. Najjar

This decision addresses several motions between the parties, including undertakings and refusals arising from cross-examinations, a request for Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) to produce certain files and employees as witnesses, and whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to file a supplementary affidavit in the context of a summary judgment motion.

The court discusses the privacy and production issues related to ESDC records, the discretion of the Minister under the Department of Employment and Social Development Act, and the test for granting leave to file supplementary affidavit material.

The court also rules on costs and sets out principles for undertakings and refusals.

The appellants brought a motion in writing to amend a previous decision of the Divisional Court, which had allowed their appeal but did not award costs of the underlying action due to a misunderstanding that they were not sought.

As no order had yet been issued or entered, the court remained seized under Rule 59.06(2)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion, finding that the appellants were entitled to costs of the action based on their successful appeal, and awarded $25,000 in costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $25,000 on an unpaid invoice for engineering services.

The trial judge had rejected the appellants' limitation defence, finding the limitation period was suspended during settlement discussions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge misapprehended the evidence.

The court held that the limitation period expired before any settlement discussions took place, as the appellants had refused to pay the full invoice amount more than two years prior to the commencement of the action.

The judgment and costs order were set aside.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal challenging the quantum of damages awarded for trespass involving the removal of trees.

The trial judge had granted summary judgment for trespass and subsequently awarded damages for tree replacement, irrigation, fencing, and "loss of amenities" based on the cost of reasonable restoration.

The appellants argued errors in applying foreseeability, assessing the plaintiff's intent to build, and drainage-related findings.

The appellate court found no reviewable error, affirming the trial judge's holistic approach to damages, the application of the Kates v. Hall restoration principle, and the rejection of arguments that the damages were unforeseeable or that the trees would have been removed anyway.

The plaintiffs sought an interim order for costs against the LawPro defendants to fund their action for malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and negligent investigation arising from a prior arson prosecution.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish impecuniosity with robust particularity, as they had substantial real estate equity and failed to account for over $1.2 million previously paid to them by LawPro.

Furthermore, the court found no special circumstances warranting an advance costs order, as the case was a private dispute without a broader public interest.

The parties, former friends, entered a business investment involving two properties.

The business relationship deteriorated, leading Chute to bring an application for partition and sale.

Pryor subsequently brought a motion seeking removal of Chute's personal property, authorization to operate the music hall, and a final disposition.

The court found Chute consistently interfered with the business operations and violated previous court orders.

An interim order was issued releasing Pryor from undertakings, making both parties jointly responsible for property expenses managed by counsel, and expediting an early trial date to resolve the dispute and income loss issues.