Marie-Andrée Vermette

The respondent in an application to set aside an international arbitral award brought a motion to strike three affidavits filed by the applicant.

The court determined that the test for admitting fresh evidence on an application to set aside an international arbitral award on procedural fairness grounds is akin to the test applied on judicial review, which requires reasonable diligence, rather than the Palmer test for appeals.

Applying this test, the court struck two affidavits in their entirety because the evidence could have been raised before the arbitral tribunal.

The court also struck portions of a third affidavit that contained improper opinion evidence and speculation.

The plaintiff's motion for the case management judge's recusal was previously dismissed.

The parties could not agree on costs and provided written submissions.

The defendants sought $4,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The self-represented plaintiff argued he should not pay costs, claiming he did not formally bring a motion and was impecunious.

The court found the plaintiff was responsible for the motion due to his persistent allegations of bias.

The court rejected the impecuniosity argument, noting a lack of evidence and that the plaintiff's conduct caused delay and wasted judicial resources.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $4,000 in costs to the defendants.

The plaintiffs sued two former employees for breach of employment agreements, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied duties of loyalty and good faith, and conversion after they left to work for a competitor.

The court found that the non-competition clauses in the employment agreements were ambiguous and overly broad, and therefore unenforceable.

The court also found that the employees were not fiduciaries.

While one employee breached his implied duty of loyalty and his obligation to safeguard confidential information by forwarding company documents to his personal email and doing work for a competitor while still employed, the plaintiffs failed to prove that these breaches caused any damages.

The action was dismissed against one employee, and the other was ordered to pay $1 in nominal damages.

The moving party, the plaintiff's former lawyer, sought costs of his successful motion to be removed as lawyer of record.

The plaintiff opposed and sought costs herself, making unsubstantiated allegations against the lawyer.

The court awarded the moving party costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with court directions, filing of voluminous irrelevant materials, and making scandalous and unsubstantiated allegations against the lawyer.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants, including a former CEO, from attending within 500 metres of their premises or communicating with staff, and for leave to amend their Statement of Claim.

The court granted the unopposed request to amend the pleadings.

However, the court dismissed the request for injunctive relief, finding that the injunction was not anchored to any pleaded cause of action such as trespass or intimidation.

Furthermore, even if trespass had been pleaded, the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm under the RJR-MacDonald test.

Following the 44th general federal election, Candidate Alejandra Bravo applied for a judicial recount in the electoral district of Davenport.

During the recount, disputes arose regarding whether to open envelopes containing spoiled and unused ballots for several polling stations.

The court issued extemporaneous rulings, allowing some envelopes to be opened where there were significant discrepancies or confusion on the Statements of the Vote, while declining others where the evidence of unreliability was insufficient.

Ultimately, Candidate Bravo terminated the recount pursuant to section 307 of the Canada Elections Act, and the original election results were confirmed.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion seeking the recusal of the case management judge, alleging bias and a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The plaintiff's allegations included complaints filed with the Canadian Judicial Council, dissatisfaction with procedural orders, and claims that the judge was disrespectful and failed to record a case conference.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court noted that the test for bias is objective and that a litigant's subjective dissatisfaction with procedural orders or the filing of a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council does not constitute cogent evidence of bias, particularly in a case-managed environment.

The applicant, a candidate in the 44th General Election, applied for a judicial recount under section 301 of the Canada Elections Act after losing by 76 votes.

The court found that the threshold for a recount is low and based on a benchmark of accuracy.

Evidence showed numerous errors on the Statements of the Vote, including uncounted unused ballots and numbers that did not balance.

The court granted the application and ordered a judicial recount.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application and motion for leave to file fresh evidence, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $110,654, arguing the applicant's conduct was reckless and the application meritless.

The court found the applicant's conduct did not rise to the egregious level required for substantial indemnity costs and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The court declined to award costs for the fresh evidence motion, finding the respondent's evidence was confusing and undisclosed.

The applicant was ordered to pay $50,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The plaintiff was successful in defending a motion to stay the action brought by the defendants on the basis of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $16,533.44 plus $1,800.94 for costs submissions.

The defendants argued for no costs or a maximum of $10,023.92.

The court rejected the defendants' argument for no costs, adjusted the plaintiff's counsel's partial indemnity rate to 60% of the full indemnity rate, and awarded the plaintiff all-inclusive costs of $12,000.00.

The plaintiff's lawyer brought a motion to be removed as lawyer of record due to an irreparable breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, filing voluminous materials containing serious allegations against the lawyer and seeking various unrelated orders, including a request that the case management judge recuse herself for bias.

The court granted the motion to remove the lawyer, finding that the relationship had irreparably broken down and that the plaintiff would not be prejudiced.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's requests for other relief and denied the recusal request, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The defendant sought costs following partial success on a motion to strike and a motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs, who were self-represented, also sought costs.

The court found that the defendant was the overall successful party, having successfully struck the 64-page statement of claim with leave to amend certain causes of action.

The court awarded the defendant costs in the all-inclusive amount of $5,000.00 on a partial indemnity basis, representing a 50% reduction to reflect its partial success.

The applicant law firm sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully enforcing an arbitration award against the respondents.

The respondents argued that the applicant, as a self-represented law firm, was only entitled to nominal costs because it failed to provide evidence of lost opportunity costs or distinguish between client time and counsel time.

The court agreed with the respondents, finding no egregious conduct to warrant substantial indemnity costs and applying appellate principles to award only nominal costs of $5,525.47.

Following a judgment granting the applicant's application and dismissing the respondent's cross-application, the parties could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on Rule 49 offers to settle.

The court found that the respondent's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs generally, but the applicant's offers to settle triggered Rule 49.10 consequences.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $60,000, representing partial indemnity costs until the date of the offers and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

In a historical civil sexual assault action, the parties resolved liability, compensatory damages, special damages, and pre-judgment interest shortly before a summary judgment motion, leaving punitive damages and costs for determination.

Applying the punitive damages framework from Whiten, the court held that punitive damages were not warranted because the defendant had already been punished through a nine-year penitentiary sentence imposed for substantially the same misconduct, and the civil court should not effectively re-try the adequacy of that criminal sentence.

The court found one alleged category of misconduct involving a protected plaintiff outside the criminally addressed timeframe could not be fairly resolved on the paper record and raised a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs on a substantial indemnity basis under the Victims’ Bill of Rights, 1995 in the all-inclusive amount of $145,000.00.

The applicant developer sought declarations and mandatory orders alleging the respondent municipality breached a Costs Sharing Agreement by failing to construct municipal services with sufficient capacity for a proposed high-density residential development.

The municipality argued the application was premature because the proposed development was not permitted under current zoning and capacity studies were ongoing.

The court dismissed the application, finding it premature and lacking practical utility, as the meaning of 'full development' in the agreement could not be determined while zoning appeals and municipal processes were still pending.

A motion to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The plaintiff sought costs following a successful motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaims and crossclaims, and the dismissal of the defendant's cross-motion.

The plaintiff requested $9,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The self-represented defendant did not provide costs submissions despite an extension.

The court found the plaintiff's costs generally reasonable but reduced the amount to account for the attendance of two senior counsel at the hearing.

The court awarded the plaintiff $8,000 in all-inclusive partial indemnity costs, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff commenced an action in Ontario for wrongful dismissal and unpaid wages against the corporate defendants and their director.

The defendants, based in British Columbia, brought a motion to stay the action, arguing that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter or, alternatively, that British Columbia was the more appropriate forum (forum non conveniens).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it had jurisdiction because the employment contract was formed in Ontario, where the plaintiff worked exclusively.

The court further held that the defendants failed to demonstrate that British Columbia was a clearly more appropriate forum, noting that the plaintiff's choice of forum was fair and efficient.

The defendant Toronto Police Services Board brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as statute-barred, or alternatively to strike the Statement of Claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action or being an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion because the defendant failed to file any evidence to discharge its evidentiary burden.

On the motion to strike, the court struck the claims for negligent investigation and obstruction of justice without leave to amend, as they are not recognized causes of action.

The remaining claims, including intentional infliction of mental suffering, intrusion upon seclusion, intimidation, defamation, and Charter breaches, were struck with leave to amend due to insufficient pleading of material facts.

The motion to strike the claim as an abuse of process was dismissed.

The respondent in an application regarding the interpretation of settlement agreements brought a motion to convert the application into an action and consolidate it with an existing 2018 action between the parties.

The underlying dispute involved a condominium development, easements, and construction on abutting properties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the discrete issues of contract interpretation could be resolved on a written record without viva voce evidence, and that delaying the application to be heard with the 2018 action would cause undue prejudice and delay to the construction project.