Laura B. Stewart

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for inordinate delay and abuse of process, nearly 24 years after its commencement.

The plaintiffs attributed the delay to their various former counsel.

The court found the delay to be inordinate and inexcusable, with primary responsibility resting with the plaintiffs.

The presumed prejudice to the defendants due to the passage of time, faded memories, and loss of a witness was not rebutted, making a fair trial impossible.

The court also exercised its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss the action, finding the severe and aggravated delay, including breaches of court-ordered deadlines and a 7-year period of inactivity, amounted to an abuse of process.

The motion to dismiss was granted, and the action was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful application by Bloor Street Diner Limited.

The applicant sought costs of $154,223.35 on a partial indemnity basis, while the respondent proposed $87,011.24.

The court considered the importance of the application, the extensive material filed, cross-examinations, and the two-day argument.

Despite some duplication of effort by counsel and the straightforward nature of the commercial lease terms, the court awarded the applicant $120,000.00, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, finding it a fair and reasonable amount based on proportionality and reasonable expectations.

Following a successful injunction motion, the Plaintiff, Ontario Graphite Ltd., sought substantial indemnity costs of $130,886.09.

The Defendants argued for costs to be reserved or in the cause.

The court found the Plaintiff achieved substantial success on the motion, which involved important issues.

Considering the extensive materials, the utility of the information for the ongoing action, and the Plaintiff's reasonable settlement efforts, the court awarded the Plaintiff $80,000.00 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, to be paid within 60 days.

This award is without prejudice to further submissions on costs at trial.

The employer brought a motion to stay the employee's counterclaim and refer it to arbitration under a Supplementary Employee Retirement Plan (SERP).

The employee cross-moved for summary judgment, seeking a declaration that certain SERP provisions were unenforceable restrictive covenants and claiming vested SERP entitlements.

The court dismissed the employee's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the enforceability of the SERP's "Detrimental Activity" clause.

The court granted the employer's motion, staying the employee's counterclaim and compelling arbitration as per the SERP's dispute resolution provisions, in line with the public policy favouring arbitration.

The defendants, Workplace Health & Cost Solutions (WHCS) and The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB), brought motions to strike the plaintiff, Dr. Brenda Steinnagel's, statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action or for being scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

The plaintiff alleged wrongful dismissal, economic torts, conspiracy, and fraudulent conduct, claiming the defendants orchestrated her termination for refusing to alter medical opinions to deny claimant benefits.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the statement of claim, read generously, sufficiently pleaded the causes of action, including unlawful interference with economic relations, inducing breach of contract, and unlawful act conspiracy.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that the action could not succeed and that allegations of fraudulent conduct were relevant to the context of dismissal and potential punitive damages.

A dispute arose after the defendant purchased a winning $2 million scratch lottery ticket while in a romantic relationship with the plaintiff and living with her parents.

The plaintiff claimed the parties had agreed to share lottery winnings, while the parents argued they owned the winnings because the ticket was purchased using their company's debit card.

The court held that the evidence did not establish any express or implied agreement between the romantic partners to share the winnings and rejected claims of constructive trust or unjust enrichment.

The court further found that the parents had implicitly permitted the debit card use and had no entitlement to the proceeds.

The winnings belonged solely to the defendant, subject only to a small damages award relating to a lost deposit caused by a freezing order obtained by the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming a psychiatrist’s finding that the patient was incapable of consenting to or refusing treatment with antipsychotic and related medications.

The appeal concerned the statutory test for incapacity under s. 4(1) of the Health Care Consent Act and whether the Board’s findings were reasonable.

Applying the reasonableness standard from Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court held the Board reasonably concluded that the patient could not understand relevant treatment information or appreciate the consequences of refusing treatment due to a mental disorder.

The Board was entitled to rely on the psychiatrist’s evidence and aspects of the patient’s testimony demonstrating lack of insight into the illness.

No basis existed for judicial interference.

Following a summary judgment decision dismissing the action against the moving parties, the court considered submissions on costs.

The successful defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $46,000 and relied in part on a prior settlement offer.

The self-represented plaintiffs, despite being unsuccessful, also sought costs.

Applying the usual rule that successful parties are entitled to costs and considering proportionality, the amount in issue, and the parties’ reasonable expectations, the court awarded a reduced lump-sum costs award.

Following a five-day civil trial in which the defendant obtained a complete dismissal of the plaintiff’s action, the defendant sought costs of approximately $62,000 on a full indemnity basis after an unaccepted settlement offer.

The self-represented plaintiff’s submissions focused on challenging the dismissal rather than addressing the costs issue.

The court reaffirmed the general rule that costs follow the event and held that the plaintiff’s self-represented status and financial hardship did not displace that principle.

After considering the relevant factors governing costs, the court awarded a reduced amount.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $45,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable within 90 days if demanded.

The plaintiffs, former insurance advisors affiliated with a large financial services company, sought payment of monthly “CORe” commissions following termination of their advisory agreements.

The agreements provided that post‑termination commissions would cease if the advisor advised, counselled, or induced clients to replace or cancel policies serviced through the company.

The defendant argued the plaintiffs breached those conditions by soliciting and transitioning hundreds of clients and significant assets to a competing business after termination.

The court held that CORe payments were conditional incentives rather than vested compensation and found that the plaintiffs had engaged in systematic replacement activities contrary to the agreements.

Relief from forfeiture and equitable claims such as quantum meruit were rejected, and the action was dismissed.

Following a prior decision in which the plaintiff successfully resisted the defendant’s motion to oppose confirmation, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs or, alternatively, partial indemnity costs.

The unsuccessful self-represented party requested costs alleging misconduct by the opposing party and counsel.

The court found no basis for the misconduct allegations and applied the usual principle that costs follow the event.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis in a reduced amount considered fair and reasonable.

Following a short civil trial in which the defendant obtained dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The parties had streamlined the trial through an agreed statement of facts and the legal issue was comparatively narrow.

The defendant sought approximately $30,000 in costs while the plaintiff argued that approximately $18,645 would be reasonable given proportionality and the amount claimed.

Applying the principles governing costs, including reasonable expectations and proportionality, the court fixed costs payable to the defendant at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

In a medical negligence action arising from dental treatment, the defendants brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the claim and argued that an alleged condition described as “geographic tongue” was not caused by any negligence of the treating dentist.

After releasing earlier reasons dismissing the summary judgment motion, the court permitted additional written submissions on whether causation regarding that specific condition should nonetheless be resolved on the motion record.

The court declined to isolate and determine a discrete causation issue at the summary judgment stage.

It held that questions of damages and causation should be determined by the trial judge on a full evidentiary record, including expert evidence.

The action was therefore left to proceed to trial.

The plaintiff brought a defamation action against a hotel and its night manager arising from statements recorded in an internal “Midnight Log” describing the plaintiff as intoxicated and belligerent during a dispute at the hotel’s front desk.

The court held that the statements were capable of referring to the plaintiff and were defamatory.

However, the court found the substance of the account was substantially true except for the characterization that the plaintiff was intoxicated.

The court further held that the preparation and internal circulation of the log and its use in an employee discipline meeting were made on occasions of qualified privilege, and there was no proof of malice.

As a result, the defamation claim failed, although the court indicated that damages would have been assessed at $25,000 if liability had been established.

The applicant regulatory body brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the respondent for breaching a prior court order prohibiting him from representing himself as a chiropractor or performing controlled acts associated with chiropractic practice.

The respondent had previously admitted breaches of the same order in earlier contempt proceedings and agreed to comply with settlement terms requiring immediate cessation of practice and removal of promotional materials.

Evidence including patient files, appointment records, and affidavits from patients established beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent continued operating a chiropractic practice and using the title “doctor” or “D.C.” in connection with providing health services.

The court found the respondent knowingly and wilfully breached the 2006 order and continued to hold himself out as a chiropractor.

A finding of contempt was entered, with a further hearing to determine penalty and costs.

Following dismissal of an appeal from a Master's decision, the court addressed costs.

The respondent had successfully resisted the appeal and sought costs.

Considering the straightforward nature of the issue and the modest materials involved, the court found it appropriate to award a fixed amount.

Costs were awarded on a lump-sum basis payable within 90 days, with the possibility of set-off against other outstanding cost orders in the proceeding.

Following a prior endorsement on costs, the court received further correspondence from counsel seeking clarification regarding the scope of the costs decision.

The court confirmed that the earlier costs ruling applied to all relevant proceedings in the matter.

This included proceedings from an earlier attendance before another judge that had been reserved to the deciding judge.

The endorsement was issued to clarify that those proceedings were encompassed within the original costs determination.

The applicant insurer appealed an arbitrator’s decision concerning loss transfer reimbursement under s. 275 of the Insurance Act after paying statutory accident benefits to its insured following a motorcycle accident caused by the respondent insurer’s insured.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant insurer had grossly mishandled the accident benefits file and unreasonably paid substantial benefits, including delayed insurer examinations and excessive settlement amounts.

As a result, the arbitrator reduced the amount recoverable from the respondent insurer.

The court held that the arbitrator’s findings involved mixed fact and law and were entitled to deference unless unreasonable.

Finding ample evidence supporting the arbitrator’s conclusions, the court declined to interfere and upheld the reduced indemnity award.

The defendants brought a motion to lift a stay imposed in 2001 pending determination of a right-to-sue application before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal and sought dismissal of the action for delay.

The self-represented plaintiff requested that the stay continue while she pursued reconsideration or judicial review of the tribunal decision.

The court held that the stay should be lifted because the tribunal decision constituted a final determination and further proceedings should not delay the civil action.

However, despite the long history of delay, the court declined to dismiss the action, finding that the existing documentary record would permit a fair trial and that the defendants had consented to the stay and delayed bringing the motion.

The action was restored to the trial list with expedited pre-trial and trial dates.

The applicant sought an interim costs order under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules requiring the respondent to advance funds for anticipated questioning and litigation expenses relating to spousal support and property equalization claims.

The court emphasized that the discretion to award interim costs must be exercised to ensure procedural fairness and a level playing field.

The court found the applicant failed to demonstrate financial need or provide sufficient evidence of anticipated legal expenses.

Evidence showed the applicant was receiving spousal support, benefitting from a partner’s contribution to household expenses, had taken a recent vacation, and had chosen to return to school instead of seeking full-time employment.

In the absence of detailed cost estimates or a bill of costs, the court declined to order interim costs but left open the possibility of a renewed motion with fuller evidence.