Jeffrey Michael Van Bakel

This decision determined the costs of a successful application concerning a right to construct and use a dock at the end of a right-of-way over the respondents' property.

The court rejected the respondents' submission that the applicants were the authors of their own misfortune and found the dispute, while not document-heavy, was uniquely complex and factually intricate.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) and the presumptive consequences under Rule 49.10(1), the court held that the applicants' offers to settle were genuine compromise offers and were as favourable as or more favourable than the ultimate remedy obtained.

The court declined to enhance costs based on alleged delay or litigation conduct by respondents' counsel, but awarded substantial costs in a reduced amount.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order administratively dismissing her 2011 slip and fall action for delay.

The action was dismissed after failing to be restored to the trial list within two years of being struck on consent.

Applying the four-part test from Prescott v. Barbon, the court found the plaintiff's counsel's documented medical condition provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The court concluded the plaintiff always intended to prosecute the action, moved forthwith upon learning of the dismissal, and the defendants suffered no significant prejudice.

The motion was granted and the action restored to the trial list.

A non-party former solicitor sought leave to intervene in an appeal where the defendant appellant was challenging a summary judgment order granting forfeiture of a deposit and costs, claiming the documentary record was incomplete due to the solicitor's negligence.

The Chief Justice of Ontario granted the intervention, finding that the interests of justice favoured a complete evidentiary record.

The court declared that the appellant had waived solicitor-client privilege with respect to the solicitor's file and communications pertaining to the matters in dispute.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing his civil action as abandoned and sought extensions to validate or extend service of the statement of claim and amend the claim.

The underlying action alleged negligent investigation and malicious prosecution arising from a traffic stop and drug-related charges that were later stayed.

The court applied the contextual factors governing reinstatement of actions dismissed for delay, including explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendants.

The court found the delay insufficiently explained, the evidence regarding counsel’s health issues unsubstantiated, and the motion not brought promptly after dismissal.

Presumed and potential actual prejudice to the defendants was not rebutted.

The court declined to set aside the dismissal order.

A status hearing was conducted under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine whether a civil action alleging solicitor negligence should be dismissed for delay.

The plaintiffs had taken no meaningful steps to advance the action for approximately three years after pleadings closed and repeatedly sought adjournments of the status hearing.

Their explanations for delay—including alleged difficulty retaining counsel, health issues, and motor vehicle accidents—were vague, unsupported by adequate evidence, and failed to address the legal test requiring both an acceptable explanation for delay and absence of non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to meet their onus to show cause why the action should proceed.

The action was therefore dismissed for delay.