MacLeod

The plaintiff, who suffered a perforated duodenum during an ERCP procedure, brought a motion to substitute the names of six specific physicians for the pseudonym 'Dr. Doe' in her statement of claim.

The court allowed the motion for five of the physicians, finding that the original pleading sufficiently pointed the 'litigation finger' at them based on the specific roles and acts of negligence described.

The motion was denied for the emergency room physician, as the original claim lacked specific allegations directing the litigation finger at him.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend independent medical examinations.

The plaintiff did not dispute the right to the examinations but sought to impose several restrictive conditions via a court order, including prohibitions on audio/video recording, questionnaires, and opinions on liability or credibility.

The court declined to impose a standard form order with the plaintiff's proposed terms, noting that many terms were either undisputed or overly broad.

The court ordered the plaintiff to attend the examinations, provided they could be arranged promptly, with reports complying with Rule 53.03(2.1).

The corporate defendants brought a motion for the production of pre-accident clinical counselling notes and for a further independent psychiatric examination of the plaintiff, two weeks before the scheduled trial of a motor vehicle accident claim.

The court granted the production of the clinical notes, finding them highly relevant to the co-plaintiff's Family Law Act claim for loss of care, guidance, and companionship.

However, the court dismissed the request for a further psychiatric examination, ruling it unreasonable and procedurally unfair to require the plaintiff to undergo another examination on the eve of trial without evidence of a significant change in her condition.

The defendant general contractor brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff sub-contractor in a construction lien dispute.

The plaintiff, an insolvent corporation whose only significant asset was the lien claim, argued that its impecuniosity should relieve it from posting security.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure regarding the ability of its shareholders to post security.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post $150,000 in security for costs, plus an additional $50,000 prior to trial.

The parties entered into a joint venture to build a semi-detached home, agreeing to share construction costs and for the defendant to purchase one unit.

A dispute arose over the calculation of construction costs to be equalized on closing.

The court held that the written agreement governed, rejecting the defendant's claim of an oral agreement modifying the terms.

The court provided directions on calculating construction costs, excluding property taxes and personal labour, while including utilities up to occupancy and adjusting the credit for a settlement with a concrete contractor.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(e), arguing the plaintiff was an undischarged bankrupt bringing a frivolous claim.

The plaintiff, who had been an undischarged bankrupt for over 40 years, claimed he was owed compensation for acting as Chief Executive Officer of the defendants' business.

The court found that while the plaintiff had insufficient assets, the claim was not frivolous and vexatious as he had worked for years without a salary.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, with no costs awarded due to the plaintiff's failure to provide full financial disclosure.

The respondents brought a motion to consolidate an application with an action.

During cross-examinations on affidavits, the applicant refused to answer several questions, leading to this refusals motion.

The Master ordered the applicant to answer questions regarding the merits of the application and his understanding of contractual documents, finding that the parol evidence rule does not preclude such questions at the cross-examination stage.

However, the Master upheld the applicant's claim of solicitor-client privilege over documents in a mediation file, finding no blanket waiver of privilege.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to examine two non-party witnesses and to amend the claim to remove one of the plaintiffs in his personal capacity.

The court dismissed the request to examine the non-parties, finding it premature as the plaintiffs had not yet exhausted the discovery process through a refusals motion.

The court granted the request to remove the individual plaintiff on terms, including that he pay $2,000 in costs to one of the defendants and remain liable for costs awarded against the unincorporated plaintiffs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for further production of corporate and financial records to resist a pending summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff sought to establish that multiple related corporate defendants were his common employer.

The defendants admitted to joint control and administration, and the operating companies undertook joint and several liability for any damages awarded.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requested disclosure was disproportionate and unnecessary given the defendants' admissions.

The parties were former joint investors in two real estate properties.

The defendant paid the plaintiff $195,000, which the defendant claimed was a full settlement for both properties, while the plaintiff claimed it was only for one.

Three years into the litigation, the defendant brought a motion to amend his statement of defence, withdraw admissions, and add a counterclaim alleging he overpaid the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the admissions were advertent and that allowing the amendments would fundamentally alter the factual narrative, causing prejudice to the plaintiff that could not be remedied by costs.

The court determined the costs of two underlying motions regarding discovery obligations and the production of a settlement agreement.

Although the defendant was successful on the principal issue argued, the plaintiff's motion was initially necessary to enforce discovery obligations.

Finding that neither party 'won' the motions when viewed in context, the court ordered that the costs of both motions be costs in the cause.

The defendant, a retired tax lawyer suffering from a debilitating medical condition, brought a motion to be excused from oral examination for discovery and to proceed by written interrogatories instead.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that oral discovery was necessary given the allegations of professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and dishonesty.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the defendant's medical condition was serious, the evidence did not establish that oral discovery, if properly managed with accommodations such as short sessions and frequent breaks, would cause physical or psychological harm.

The plaintiff, a former tenant of a public housing corporation, sued the corporation and its lawyer after being evicted due to mould and water infiltration that rendered her unit uninhabitable.

The defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim.

The court struck the claim against the lawyer, finding no cause of action exists against opposing counsel for actions taken in their client's interest.

The court also struck the claim against the corporation, finding the eviction issues were already decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board and any claim for rent abatement was statute-barred under the one-year limitation period in the Residential Tenancies Act.

The action was dismissed without leave to amend.

A subsequent lien claimant brought a motion to vary an interim report that directed the distribution of trust funds to original lien claimants.

The moving party sought to attach funds payable to its contractor to satisfy its own subsequent liens.

The court declined to vary the interim report, finding that the settlement agreement among the original lien claimants was valid.

However, the court ordered that the funds received by the contractor be impressed with a trust in favour of the moving party and other subtrades, and directed the contractor to pay 10% of the received funds to the moving party pursuant to a prior agreement.

The defendant in a solicitor's negligence action brought a motion for the production of documents over which the plaintiff claimed settlement and solicitor-client privilege.

The court reviewed the documents and found that privilege had been waived or exceptions applied, as the documents related to the implementation of a settlement and the plaintiff's access to independent legal advice, which were central to the defence.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce the documents, allowing only one redaction for specific legal advice.

The defendant franchisor brought a motion for further documentary production from the plaintiff franchisee in an $11 million dispute over dealership construction and a competing franchise.

The defendant sought construction files, financial records of related non-party corporations, and documents from the plaintiff's accountants to assess the plaintiff's damages claims.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce additional construction documents, disclose relevant inter-company agreements, and request the voluntary production of financial statements from related non-party corporations, with leave for the defendant to bring Rule 30.10 motions if refused.

The plaintiff slipped and fell outside a Tim Horton's restaurant.

She initially sued only the franchisee.

More than two years after the accident, she commenced a second action against the landlord and the snow removal contractor.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred.

The court applied the new summary judgment framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin and found that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the potential liability of the landlord and snow removal contractor shortly after the accident.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the expiry of the limitation period and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff lien claimants brought a motion for judgment following the defendants' default on a settlement agreement in a construction lien reference.

The first mortgagee, Pillar, sought the return of funds it had advanced that were held in trust by plaintiff's counsel.

The Master granted judgment to the lien claimants, finding they were entitled to enforce the settlement agreement upon default.

The Master dismissed Pillar's claim to the trust funds, holding that the funds were advanced to support the settlement without any escrow agreement in Pillar's favour and were therefore available to satisfy the judgment.

The defendant moved to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim and dismiss the action for failure to comply with a consent order requiring the plaintiff to answer outstanding undertakings.

The plaintiff, representing himself, willfully refused to answer the undertakings, claiming they were irrelevant and too much work.

The Master found no evidence that the plaintiff was under a legal disability and concluded that his failure to comply constituted a willful and intentional disregard of a court order.

The action was dismissed with costs fixed at $2,800 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs, Ian and Kent Hawkins, brought a motion to remove the estate trustees (their brother Carl and brother-in-law Garry) appointed under their late father's will, alleging a conflict of interest due to ongoing litigation over the estate's primary assets.

The plaintiffs also sought to prevent the trustees from controlling access to the deceased's former solicitor's file.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the heavy onus to remove estate trustees was not met, as there was no evidence that the trustees' continuation in office would inevitably impede the proper administration of the estate.

The court also held that concerns regarding access to the solicitor's file could be adequately addressed through the ordinary rules of civil procedure, though the court ordered the action to be case managed.