S.

This is a costs ruling following the dismissal of recusal motions brought by the Moving Parties (Sam Cosentino, Concetta Cosentino, and Cesare Cosentino).

The court rejected the Moving Parties' request to refer costs to an assessment officer, affirming that judges typically fix costs to avoid delay.

It found that the Moving Parties should have reasonably anticipated the responding defendants' participation and associated legal costs.

While the recusal motion was ill-conceived and involved a substantial record, the court determined that the Moving Parties' conduct was not egregious enough to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The court adjusted some cost claims for duplication of counsel and excluded time spent on non-party witnesses, ultimately awarding partial indemnity costs to the successful defendants.

The moving parties (Sam, Concetta, and Cesare Cosentino) sought the recusal of the case management judge, Daley RSJ, in seven related high-conflict family litigation actions, alleging bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias.

They also sought a transfer of the actions from Brampton to Toronto.

The court dismissed both the recusal motions and the transfer request, finding no cogent evidence to overcome the strong presumption of judicial impartiality.

The judge emphasized the higher threshold for recusal in a case management context, where close interaction and familiarity with the case are expected.

The defendant, Tribecca Finance Corporation, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs due to an unpaid costs award in a related action.

The plaintiffs resisted the motion, arguing delay, the merits of their case, and the quantum of security.

The court found that the defendant's delay was not unreasonable and that the merits of the action were a neutral factor given credibility issues.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post $32,000 in security for costs.

Costs of the motion were split due to a Rule 49 offer to settle made by the plaintiffs.

The defendant, K & S Temporary Medical Services Inc., moved to strike the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim.

This was the sixth pleading motion in an action commenced in 2009, with the plaintiffs, represented by Helen Cerqueira, repeatedly failing to produce a compliant pleading despite extensive judicial guidance from multiple judges.

The court found the latest pleading still fundamentally unworkable, lacking clarity, organization, and specificity regarding duties, breaches, and damages.

Given the history of non-compliance and a prior 'last chance' order, the claim was struck without leave to amend.

A motion was brought to set aside a registrar's order dismissing an action for delay, which was prematurely issued due to a court staff error.

The court found the registrar lacked authority to issue the dismissal order, rendering it a nullity.

Despite some delay attributable to former counsel's inadvertence and the plaintiffs' initial inaction, the court emphasized the policy bias towards hearing cases on their merits.

The defendant's claims of prejudice were not substantiated or causally linked to the plaintiffs' delay, and their passivity in addressing the dismissal order undermined their position.

The motion was granted, setting aside the dismissal order and reinstating the action with new deadlines for mediation and setting down for trial.

The plaintiff sought to add Manulife as a defendant to a long-term disability claim after the expiry of the presumptive limitation period, having initially sued the wrong insurer (Great-West Life).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence to discover the correct insurer and that adding Manulife would cause actual prejudice, as they lost the opportunity to conduct timely medical assessments and charge back benefits to the policyholder.

The defendant was charged under the Dog Owners Liability Act with failing to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent her dog from biting a person.

The complainant alleged that the defendant's German shepherd bit her while she was riding her bicycle on a public road.

The defendant maintained that her dog was properly secured when she left the property and that the complainant frequently trespassed on her property and provoked the dogs.

The court found the defendant not guilty, determining that the steps taken by the defendant to secure her dog constituted reasonable precautions, particularly given the absence of prior aggressive behaviour by the dog and the ambiguity regarding where the bite occurred.