Joseph W.L. Griffiths

The moving party brought a motion for directions in the context of competing applications for the passing of accounts, seeking extensive additional financial disclosure from the responding party regarding their late parents' real estate and financial assets.

The responding party opposed, arguing the requests were disproportionate and that the moving party was delaying court-ordered mediation.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering specific disclosure regarding a $300,000 line of credit and cooperation on the sale of a foreign property, but denied the broader requests as disproportionate and directed the parties to proceed to mediation and set a date for the passing of accounts.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring the corporate respondent the sole owner of two boats and awarding damages for breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, and punitive damages.

The appellants also appealed the dismissal of their counterclaim and the costs awards.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge reasonably concluded there was a contract for the sale of the boats but no joint venture agreement.

The court found no errors in the trial judge's findings on fiduciary duty, defamation, damages, or costs.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $17,000 awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff hired the defendants to convert a carport into an enclosed garage for $62,000.

The defendants falsely represented that no building permit was required and that the work would comply with applicable codes.

The structure was built without a permit and was structurally deficient.

Upon inspection by a professional engineer, the structure was found to be unfit for purpose and was demolished.

The defendants failed to appear at trial after initially retaining counsel and preparing responding material.

The court struck the defence and proceeded with an uncontested trial.

Judgment was rendered in favour of the plaintiff for the full contract price, demolition costs, engineering fees, and damages for inconvenience and interference with use of property.

This decision concerns a dispute between two couples and their closely held corporations over the ownership and operation of "Tiki" boats in Wasaga Beach, Ontario.

The court found that no binding joint venture or operator agreement was reached, and that the only enforceable contract was the sale of the boats to the plaintiffs.

The defendants' unilateral actions with Transport Canada and defamatory statements on social media led to findings of breach of fiduciary duty and defamation, resulting in damages and punitive damages awarded to the plaintiffs.

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order for the plaintiff, Rafik Yasso, to undergo independent medical examinations (IMEs) by a neuropsychologist and a physiatrist.

The plaintiff opposed, citing past negative experiences with IME scheduling and the triggering of his anxiety/PTSD.

The court found that the defendant had a procedural and substantive entitlement to these examinations.

Despite the plaintiff's past difficulties, the court determined there was no compelling reason preventing his participation and that the prejudice to the defendant in proceeding to trial without responding medical evidence outweighed the plaintiff's inconvenience.

The motion was allowed, and the plaintiff was ordered to attend the IMEs, with no costs awarded due to shared responsibility for the difficulties.

This is a costs endorsement following the successful dismissal of an action against the defendant Aeden Helmer under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Mr. Helmer sought full indemnity costs of $78,580.35.

The plaintiff, Paula Riopelle, argued for no costs or partial indemnity, citing privacy concerns and the nature of the action.

The court affirmed the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs for successful anti-SLAPP motions, finding no basis to depart from it.

The court also assessed the quantum of costs, concluding that the amount claimed was fair, reasonable, and proportionate given the complexity and importance of the issues, including freedom of expression and the open court principle.

Mr. Helmer was awarded full indemnity costs of $78,580.35.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action due to the plaintiff's failure to pay ordered security for costs ($45,000) and costs ($8,400).

Despite being given extensions and opportunities, the plaintiff provided no evidence of payment or a plan to pay.

The court, balancing the importance of procedural compliance with access to justice, found no compelling reason to grant further indulgence and dismissed the action under Rule 56.06.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the defendants.

Following an eight-day trial where Mr. Park's action was dismissed, Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. sought partial indemnity costs of $135,814.08.

Mr. Park argued the amount was excessive, proposing "no more than $75,000" and incorrectly relying on simplified procedure rules.

The court found counsel rates reasonable but acknowledged potential duplication of effort due to multiple lawyers and students involved over the case's long duration.

Considering the case's moderate complexity, importance to both parties, and Costco's full success, the court fixed Costco's costs at $120,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendants, successful on a prior motion for security of costs, sought substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued for costs to be reserved or deferred, or capped at a lower amount.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct, including failure to provide financial disclosure and file a motion record, was unreasonable, contributing to the complexity and costs incurred by the defendants.

Consequently, the court awarded elevated costs of $8,400 to the defendants, payable within 30 days, rejecting the plaintiff's arguments for deferral or a lower quantum.

The plaintiff, a 20-year employee, was terminated for just cause by the defendant after he twice deliberately deleted a company website he had created and engaged in insubordinate and dishonest conduct.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal, claiming damages for pay in lieu of notice, loss of benefits, breach of human rights, bad faith, and aggravated damages.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding that his actions constituted wilful misconduct incompatible with the fundamental terms of his employment relationship, thereby justifying summary dismissal.

The court also found no evidence to support claims for bad faith or human rights damages, concluding that the employer's investigation was adequate and that the plaintiff's mental health did not play a role in the termination decision.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff had been locked out of its leased commercial premises for unpaid rent, and the premises were subsequently destroyed by an accidental fire.

The court found the defendants met their initial burden of showing the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The plaintiff failed to provide robust financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity or demonstrate a high chance of success on the merits.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $45,000 as security for costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that awarded damages and other relief to the respondents in a land development dispute.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's reasons lacked sufficient analysis for various causes of action, including fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and duty of honest performance.

The appellate court also identified factual findings that were not supported by the evidence, particularly concerning drainage responsibilities.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal noted problematic judicial conduct during the trial, including an ill-advised bifurcation of the trial and comments that suggested a lack of impartiality.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment below was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The plaintiff, a former real estate agent for the defendant brokerage, brought a motion for an order under Rule 45.02 or an injunction requiring the defendant to set aside commission funds from transactions he closed.

The plaintiff also sought to strike the Statement of Defence or demand particulars.

The court denied the injunction but granted the Rule 45.02 order, finding the plaintiff had a right to a specific fund of commissions.

The defendant was ordered to provide an accounting, pay existing held funds into court, and set aside 12.5% of gross commissions on an ongoing basis.

The defendant was also ordered to provide particulars.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave to appeal and allowed an appeal from the Divisional Court, restoring a motion judge's order to strike jury notices in two civil actions (tort and accident benefits) arising from a motor vehicle collision.

The motion judge had struck the jury notices due to significant delays in scheduling civil jury trials in Ottawa amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, ordering judge-alone trials in tranches.

The Divisional Court had overturned this, finding the motion judge's decision arbitrary due to insufficient evidence of prejudice beyond delay.

The Court of Appeal held that delay alone can constitute prejudice, that appellate courts should show deference to discretionary case management decisions, and that the motion judge had sufficient evidence of local conditions to justify the order.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice due to the suspension of civil jury trials in Ottawa caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to compel the injured plaintiff to attend an independent medical examination (IME) without the presence of a support person.

The court granted both motions, finding that the pandemic-related delay justified striking the jury notice to ensure timely access to justice, and that the defendants were entitled to an IME without third-party interference absent medical evidence requiring a support person.

The plaintiffs moved for a stay of a Divisional Court order that reinstated the defendants' jury notices, pending their motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The original motion judge had struck the jury notices due to COVID-19 delays in Ottawa, but the Divisional Court overturned this, finding the decision arbitrary.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test and Sault Dock principles, the Court of Appeal granted the stay, finding a serious question to be tried regarding the Divisional Court's interference with the motion judge's discretion, irreparable harm to the plaintiffs if their scheduled judge-alone trial date was lost, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs.

TD General Insurance Company brought a motion in writing to be added as a statutory third party under s. 258(14) of the Insurance Act, denying coverage to the deceased defendant due to an alleged breach of statutory conditions.

The court adjourned the motion to an oral hearing, citing numerous procedural and substantive deficiencies, including counsel acting as both advocate and affiant, lack of service, and failure to specify the alleged breached conditions.

The court, on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissed the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff alleged that a defendant falsely represented his marital status to a pension plan, leading to him receiving benefits to which he was not entitled.

The court found the action constituted an abusive collateral attack on the pension plan's determination, which was already subject to judicial review by the plaintiff.

Additionally, the plaintiff's claim for children's documents lacked a legal basis.

The action was dismissed without costs.

The appellants, Ronald Patterson and his family, appealed the dismissal of their motions to strike the jury and declare a mistrial in a motor vehicle personal injury action.

During jury deliberations, a juror accessed extrinsic information (Fault Determination Rules) online and shared it.

The trial judge conducted an inquiry, issued a correcting charge, and dismissed the motions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge properly inquired into the extrinsic information and effectively addressed its prejudicial effect with a correcting charge, which the jury was presumed to have followed.

The court found no misapprehension of evidence or patent unreasonableness in the trial judge's decision.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claim for adverse possession of a small area of land surrounding an outhouse on their neighbours' property, and awarding them $15,000 in nominal compensatory and punitive damages for the destruction of the outhouse and loss of use of their cottage.

The respondents cross-appealed the damages awards.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the outhouse was placed with permission, which defeated the adverse possession claim.

The Court also upheld the nominal damages awards, finding them to be a rational response to the evidentiary difficulties in assessing damages and the respondent's high-handed misconduct.