Lindsay Lorimer

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, brought a 16-page Notice of Application.

The City of Toronto, as the first named respondent, sought dismissal of the application under Rule 2.1.03.

The court found that the applicant failed to follow the required procedure for vexatious litigants to seek leave to proceed, as established by a prior order.

Citing previous decisions involving the same applicant, the court dismissed the application in its entirety and ordered the applicant to pay costs on a substantial indemnity basis to each respondent.

The Moen defendants brought a motion seeking a confidentiality order to protect proprietary product design and manufacturing information, arguing it was highly sensitive and at commercial risk.

The plaintiffs and co-defendant Motion Specialties opposed, asserting the motion was premature, unnecessary, and lacked sufficient evidentiary basis to meet the high onus for such orders.

The court dismissed the Moen defendants' motion, finding they failed to demonstrate an important commercial interest or the absence of reasonable alternative protective measures.

The court concluded that the information's level of secrecy did not warrant confidentiality beyond the implied undertaking rule and criticized the Moen defendants for causing unnecessary delay in the litigation.

The defendant Terex Corporation brought a motion for summary judgment to be let out of the action.

The plaintiff ultimately did not oppose the summary judgment but disputed the defendant's claim for costs.

The court found the plaintiff liable for costs because it kept the defendant in the litigation despite being unable to establish liability.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendant should not recover costs due to joint representation with other defendants.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $20,000.

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 12 of the Evidence Act to call four additional expert witnesses (three occupational therapists and one life care planner) in a personal injury action, beyond the three medical experts and one accountant already intended.

The defendants opposed, arguing duplication and unnecessary expense.

The court granted leave for two of the four additional experts: Ms. Schmidt (occupational therapist) and Mr. Smit (life care planner), but limited Mr. Smit's evidence to costs.

The court denied leave for Mr. Campbell and Mr. Tyrer, finding their evidence duplicative as both were occupational therapists and vocational assessors co-authoring reports on employability.

This costs endorsement followed a successful status hearing motion by the plaintiffs and a partially successful cross-motion by the defendants.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs for the status hearing, citing the defendants' litigation conduct.

The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs for the status hearing, finding no basis for substantial indemnity as the criticized conduct related to the general litigation, not the specific motion.

For the cross-motion, where success was divided, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The plaintiffs sought a status hearing under Rule 48.14 to allow their action to proceed despite a five-year delay and requested a timetable.

The defendants opposed, seeking dismissal due to non-compensable prejudice from a key witness's death and alleged spoliation of evidence.

The court found the plaintiffs provided acceptable explanations for the delay, which was largely attributable to interlocutory proceedings and the defendants' actions.

The court also determined that any prejudice from the witness's death or evidence destruction did not arise from the delay necessitating the status hearing and was not so extensive as to prevent a fair trial.

The defendants' cross-motion to strike parts of a reply affidavit was granted in part.

The main motion to allow the action to proceed was granted, and a timetable was imposed.

The plaintiffs sought judicial approval of two settlement agreements in class actions alleging price-fixing in the automotive parts industry.

The first settlement with T.Rad was for $1,167,452, and the second with S-Y Systems was for $50,000.

The court found both settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting they fell within a zone of reasonableness.

The settlements and requested legal fees were approved.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve class action settlements with the Sumitomo and GS Electech defendants regarding alleged price-fixing of automotive wire harness systems, electronic control units, and heating control panels.

The court found the settlements, totaling $11 million for Sumitomo and $120,000 for GS Electech, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting they fell within a zone of reasonableness compared to U.S. settlements and potential damages.

The court also approved class counsel's 25% contingency fee and disbursements.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to add several parties, including Watts and Gayton, as defendants in an action arising from a fatal scalding incident in a retirement home bathtub.

Watts and Gayton opposed the motion, arguing the limitation period had expired and they would suffer non-compensable prejudice because the plumbing apparatus was no longer available for inspection.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover the identities of the proposed defendants within the limitation period, as they could have obtained this information by requiring timely delivery of the original defendants' statements of defence.

The motion to add Watts and Gayton was dismissed.

This decision approves two class action settlements against Furukawa and Fujikura defendants for price-fixing in the automotive wire harness systems (AWHS) industry.

The court certified the class actions for settlement purposes, finding that the requirements of the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The settlements, for $2.3 million (Furukawa) and $1,083,280 (Fujikura), were deemed fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the class, based on detailed affidavit evidence from class counsel.

The court also approved class counsel's legal fees, calculated as a 25% contingency plus disbursements and taxes, consistent with retainer agreements and prior jurisprudence.

Following Suncor's successful motion for summary judgment dismissing the action against it, the parties made written submissions on costs.

Suncor sought substantial indemnity costs and argued the plaintiff's counsel should be personally liable for costs under Rule 57.07(1).

The plaintiff argued no costs should be awarded or that enforcement should be stayed pending trial against the remaining defendants to allow for a potential Sanderson order.

The court awarded Suncor partial indemnity costs of $34,877.53, finding no basis for substantial indemnity costs or personal costs against counsel.

The court also denied the stay, concluding there was no reasonable prospect of a Sanderson order being granted.

The plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including Suncor Energy Inc., for damages arising from an assault by a gas station employee.

Suncor brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against it, arguing it was not vicariously liable for the employee of its licensee, Takbro Enterprises Limited.

The court applied the principles of vicarious liability, particularly from Bazley v. Curry, finding that the employee's wrongful acts were only coincidentally linked to Suncor's activities as a licensor.

The court determined there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding Suncor's vicarious liability and granted Suncor's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the action against it.

Following the dismissal of an urgent anti-suit injunction application, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court found that the moving parties had manufactured urgency despite having months of advance notice of the foreign proceeding they sought to enjoin, and had delivered voluminous materials on extremely short notice, impairing the responding parties’ ability to respond.

The court concluded the litigation strategy was tactical and inconsistent with the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles of fairness.

As a result, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the successful responding parties.

The court fixed the costs award at $27,500 as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a proposed product liability class action for settlement purposes and to approve a negotiated settlement and class counsel fees under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action alleged design and manufacturing defects in certain windows that permitted water penetration and caused wood rot and property damage.

The court held that the requirements for certification under s. 5(1) were met in the settlement context and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The proposed settlement, which provided compensation through a claims process or expedited arbitration and included no cap on total benefits, was found to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $650,000 as reasonable in light of the risks and work undertaken.