Ronald F. Caza

The decision addresses two motions in a commercial real estate dispute: a motion to strike claims against individual condominium directors, and a motion for production of documents.

The court struck the claims against the directors but granted the plaintiff leave to amend, finding the pleadings did not sufficiently distinguish the directors’ conduct from that of the corporation.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s production motion, holding that privilege over communications with counsel and the property manager was not waived by the addition of the property manager as a third party.

The ruling clarifies the high threshold for personal liability of condominium directors and the scope of privilege in multi-party litigation.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action after a three-week trial, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant argued the plaintiff made unfounded allegations of dishonesty and that a nominal settlement offer showed the plaintiff knew the claim lacked merit.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding that while the plaintiff's allegations were not proven, he sincerely believed them and had some basis for his perception.

The court also held that settlement offers should not be used as evidence that a party believes their case lacks merit.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $150,152.65.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, sued his former firm for breach of contract regarding the transfer of client files and wills upon his departure, and for various accounting discrepancies.

The court found that despite being an "independent practitioner" by contract, the plaintiff's practice was highly integrated with the firm, creating obligations and potential liability for the firm towards clients.

Therefore, the firm was entitled to require client directives for file transfers.

The court dismissed the claim for damages related to loss of productivity.

The court also dismissed the financial claims, finding they were not properly pleaded and were statute-barred.

The court rejected the plaintiff's conspiracy theory regarding the firm attempting to appropriate his clientele.

This costs endorsement followed a summary judgment motion where portable school classrooms were found to be "improvements" under the Construction Act.

OnPoint Group Ltd., the successful party on the main issue, sought full indemnity costs, while intervening parties also sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded OnPoint Group Ltd. $35,000 and the intervenors $9,500, both on a partial indemnity basis.

The decision considered factors such as mixed success, complexity, and the novelty of the issue, and addressed the impact of bilingual proceedings on costs.

The defendant Conseil des Écoles Catholiques du Centre Est (CECCE) brought a summary judgment motion to determine if portable school classrooms built by the plaintiff OnPoint Group Ltd. are "improvements" under the Construction Act, thereby engaging lien provisions, and to dismiss OnPoint's unjust enrichment claim.

The court found the portables are "improvements" and lienable due to their on-site completion, known final destination, CECCE's holdback practices, and enhancement of the school's utility.

However, the unjust enrichment claim was dismissed as CECCE was not unjustly enriched and a juristic reason (contract with general contractor) existed.

Following a successful motion by the respondent to strike portions of the applicant's affidavit in an estate litigation matter, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of over $56,000, arguing the applicant made unfounded allegations of fraud and conspiracy, and requested costs be payable personally by the applicant's counsel under Rule 57.07.

The court declined to award full or substantial indemnity costs and refused to order costs against counsel personally, finding the conduct did not rise to the requisite egregious level.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend his statement of claim and to continue the action under the simplified procedure, just weeks before a scheduled six-day trial.

The court granted leave to amend the pleadings, finding that the amendments arose from the same factual matrix and would not cause prejudice that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

However, the court dismissed the request to continue under the simplified procedure, noting the motion was brought late in breach of a pre-trial order and that it would be unfair to the defendant to change the procedure solely to allow the plaintiff to avoid adverse costs consequences.

The garnishee brought a motion to reinstate its appeal of an associate judge's order, which had been struck by the registrar for failure to file a motion confirmation form.

The creditor brought a cross-motion to strike the garnishee's affidavit and for judgment.

The court found that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not clearly require a motion confirmation form for an appeal of an interlocutory order of an associate judge, and the creditor should have consented to the reinstatement.

The court granted the motion to reinstate the appeal and dismissed the creditor's motion.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order dated January 11, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing and awarded costs of $2,500 on a partial indemnity scale to the respondents.

The applicant sought partial summary judgment to compel the sale of shares in a family dairy farm corporation from the estate of a deceased brother and other family members.

The applicant alleged an impasse in the company's management due to a breakdown in the relationship with the new shareholders, claiming he was forced to work excessive hours without cooperation or authority.

The respondents disputed these claims, alleging the applicant refused to register them as shareholders, mismanaged finances, and failed to provide necessary documentation.

The court dismissed the motion for partial summary judgment, finding significant factual disputes and credibility issues that required a full trial.

The court emphasized that partial summary judgment is a rare procedure, inappropriate when issues are intertwined and pleadings are not closed.

The plaintiff, Richcraft Homes Ltd., initiated an action against several defendants, including Urbandale Corporation, Urbandale Construction Limited, and Lawrence Weinstein, seeking declaratory relief for oppressive conduct, breach of contract, and punitive damages related to land development projects.

The defendants brought motions under Rule 21 to strike Richcraft's claims, arguing they failed to plead material facts supporting a reasonable prospect of success.

The court granted the motions, finding that Richcraft did not demonstrate compensable injury or a likelihood of threatened oppressive conduct, nor an independent actionable wrong for punitive damages.

Leave to amend was denied due to the absence of proposed amendments or supporting evidence.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, a police officer on leave serving as union president, was suspended and barred from police facilities following criminal charges.

He sued, alleging interference with his union duties.

The court found that the essential character of the dispute arose either under the collective agreement or the disciplinary regime of the Police Services Act.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction and the action was dismissed.

Following a successful civil action for abuse against their father, Liviu Calin, plaintiffs Ana and Ilinca Calin sought costs of over $395,000.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 factors, found the requested costs disproportionately high given the significant disparity between the $10.15 million claimed and the $105,000 awarded.

While acknowledging the plaintiffs' success and the principles of the Victims' Bill of Rights, the court determined that the plaintiffs' pursuit of unrealistic claims, particularly for income loss and incidents in Romania, unnecessarily lengthened proceedings.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $100,000 in costs, reduced by a prior $17,000 order against them, resulting in a net payment of $83,000 from the defendant.

The appellant appealed from a trial judge's decision dismissing his malicious prosecution claim against the respondents and upholding a defamation judgment against him and his wife.

The appellant alleged that the respondents falsely reported sexual assault charges against him to police.

The trial judge granted a non-suit motion on the malicious prosecution claim, finding insufficient evidence that the respondents initiated the prosecution.

The trial judge also withdrew the qualified privilege defence from the jury regarding defamatory statements made to a priest.

The jury found the appellants jointly liable for defamation and awarded damages of $25,000.

The Court of Appeal upheld all trial decisions.

Costs decision following a neighbour dispute over laneway access.

The successful party sought $43,750 in costs, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found the offer was not beaten and noted the successful party's provocative pre-litigation conduct in blocking the laneway unnecessarily escalated the dispute.

Applying the principle of proportionality and considering the conduct, the court fixed costs at $15,000.

This endorsement addresses the costs of motions argued on February 27, 2017.

The plaintiffs were largely successful in a motion to strike a defamation action but unsuccessful in a motion for the return of personal property.

Considering the written submissions and Rule 59 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded the plaintiffs modest costs on a partial indemnity scale against Mr. Chan and Ms. Tourian.

The plaintiffs' claim for approximately $30,000.00 was reduced to $7,000.00 due to the motions' lack of complexity and divided success.

The applicants, John Charles Brown and Joanne Muggette Brown, sought a declaration of adverse possession or a prescriptive easement over a laneway on Karen Savage's property.

Karen Savage, in a cross-application, sought a closing order for the laneway.

The court dismissed the Browns' claims for adverse possession and prescriptive easement, finding they failed to establish exclusive use or use "as of right." The court found that Savage did not require a closing order under the Road Access Act because the Browns had viable alternative access to their property from a public road, albeit at a cost.

Savage was granted the right to exclude the Browns from using the laneway, with a one-year suspension of enforcement to allow the Browns to implement alternative access.

The Plaintiffs, having obtained partial summary judgment on liability, sought substantial indemnity costs.

The Defendants proposed a global award.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, assessed the Plaintiffs' costs.

It found the Plaintiffs' claimed fees and disbursements excessive, particularly for time not directly related to the summary judgment motion and for preparing costs submissions.

The court also considered the "no-cost" offer to settle, finding it did not automatically trigger Rule 49 consequences but was a relevant factor.

The court fixed the Plaintiffs' costs at $160,889.76 in fees and $100,000 in disbursements, inclusive of taxes.

The court heard two motions in consolidated actions: one by ORBCOMM for the return of corporate data from former senior managers (Chan and Tourian) and the representative shareholder (Randy Taylor Professional Corporation), and another by ORBCOMM, Skywave, and Marc Eisenberg to strike a defamation claim brought by Chan and Tourian.

The court ordered Chan and Tourian to provide copies of the data but allowed them to retain their own copies, finding no contractual obligation to destroy them.

The defamation claim was struck for lack of particularity but with leave to amend, as the former managers were not parties to the main action and thus had no direct means to dispute allegations affecting their reputation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the defendants' liability for professional negligence in failing to advise them of the 21-year deemed disposition rule under the Income Tax Act regarding a family trust.

The defendants admitted breach of the standard of care but disputed causation, arguing the third-party accountants were responsible, and brought a cross-motion to have causation and damages heard together with the third-party claim.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding no genuine issue for trial on liability as the 'but for' test for causation was met against the defendants.

The court dismissed the defendants' cross-motion, holding that the third-party action could proceed independently and should not delay the plaintiffs' main action.