Lloyd Mordecai Hoffer

Following their successful motion for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from terminating their franchise business, the plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $115,500.

The defendant argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge or reduced by half.

The court rejected reserving costs, noting the action was at an early stage.

Noting the importance of the issues and the defendant's failure to provide its own costs outline for comparison, the court fixed costs payable to the plaintiffs at $95,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiffs, a franchisee and its principal, moved for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant franchisor from terminating their franchise agreement pending trial.

The franchisor had issued a notice of termination alleging numerous breaches of health and safety standards following intensive inspections.

The plaintiffs argued the franchisor breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act and common law by enforcing standards with unreasonable severity to appropriate the profitable business.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm in the potential destruction of the business, and the balance of convenience favouring the plaintiffs.

The interlocutory injunction was granted.

The defendants brought a motion seeking a further and better affidavit of documents from the plaintiff due to alleged overproduction and lack of categorization, and both parties sought security for costs as none were ordinarily resident in Ontario.

The court ordered the plaintiff to categorize its 24,000 documents and denied the plaintiff's request for increased discovery time.

Both 6Points Food Services Ltd. and Carl's Jr. Restaurants LLC were ordered to post $80,000 each in security for costs, with the court finding Carl's Jr. to be an "initiating plaintiff" despite being a defendant by counterclaim, due to its prior commencement of proceedings in California.

This decision addresses five separate motions brought by the plaintiffs to reinstate administratively dismissed actions or extend time for filing/serving Statements of Claim, after 14 years of litigation with minimal progress.

The court dismissed all motions, finding that the plaintiffs had abused the process by repeatedly attempting to re-litigate issues already decided, misusing court procedures for investigative purposes rather than advancing claims, consistently ignoring court orders and timetables, and failing to properly manage their claims and expert evidence.

The court relied on its inherent jurisdiction to manage its process, concluding that the delay was inordinate and inexplicable, and that "enough is enough."

Following reasons dismissing most aspects of a motion to strike, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The responding parties were largely successful on the motion, though one claim for unjust enrichment was struck with leave to amend.

The court applied Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles from Boucher regarding fair and reasonable costs.

While the successful parties sought substantial indemnity or partial indemnity costs exceeding $19,000, the court found those amounts excessive for a short motion and fixed costs at $11,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The appellant, a plasterer, was bitten by a mosquito carrying the West Nile virus while working outside and was rendered a paraplegic.

His initial action against the respondent insurer was dismissed on the basis that his injury was not caused by an 'accident' under his group accident insurance policy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the illness was an unforeseen, unexpected event caused by an external source, and therefore fell within the ordinary definition of an accident.