Marie-Andrée Vermette

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, alleging no reasonable cause of action under the Charter or Human Rights Code, and that certain claims were ultra vires the Law Society Act.

The plaintiff, a self-represented individual who failed the bar exams multiple times, alleged discrimination based on cognitive disability and racial/ethnic/cultural background, and challenged the Law Society's authority.

The court struck the plaintiff's claims under section 7 of the Charter and claims related to cognitive disability (actual or perceived) under section 15 of the Charter and the Code without leave to amend.

Claims against the Non-LSO Defendants were struck entirely.

Claims related to racial, ethnic, and cultural discrimination under section 15 of the Charter and the Code against the Law Society were struck with leave to amend, provided they relate to the plaintiff's specific characteristics.

The court also found it lacked jurisdiction over the "Non-Charter Claims" (ultra vires, unreasonableness, procedural fairness) as these belong to the Divisional Court for judicial review.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of both the plaintiffs' claim and the defendants' counterclaim in the underlying action (2022 ONSC 1235).

The court determined the allocation of 'costs thrown away' from a mistrial, finding the plaintiffs responsible due to their counsel's mistake regarding land descriptions, and awarded these costs on a full indemnity basis.

For the costs of the action, the court applied a partial indemnity scale, rejecting the defendants' claim for substantial indemnity due to the absence of reprehensible conduct by the plaintiffs.

The court also considered the reasonableness of counsel's rates and time spent, applying a reduction to the defendants' claimed costs for overall reasonableness, including a deduction for a prior removal motion.

The final award was $462,422.01 in favour of the defendants.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's notice of examination for discovery of the defendant's president, Linda Kuga, and sought to substitute Alessandro Mendes, Vice-President of Research and Innovation, as the corporate representative.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that the defendant failed to discharge its onus to show that Ms. Kuga was an inappropriate corporate representative.

The court applied the three-factor test for substituting a corporate representative, concluding that Ms. Kuga was sufficiently knowledgeable, it would not be oppressive to examine her, and the plaintiff would be prejudiced by examining a less knowledgeable subordinate.

This endorsement concerns the costs of a successful motion brought by Skyservice Business Aviation Inc. to strike allegations of vicarious liability for sexual harassment from the plaintiff's statement of claim.

Skyservice sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff argued for partial indemnity.

The court found no conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs, affirming that such an elevated scale is reserved for reprehensible conduct.

The court awarded Skyservice costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $14,562.88, finding the quantum reasonable based on the time spent and rates, and noting its similarity to the plaintiff's own partial indemnity costs outline.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking various forms of interlocutory relief, including compelling discovery, amending their statement of claim to increase damages and add punitive damages, and abridging time for an expert report.

The court granted leave to increase compensatory damages from $4 million to $7 million and ordered the defendant to answer two specific undertakings.

However, the court denied leave for a further affidavit of documents and for adding a punitive damages claim, citing significant delay and presumed prejudice.

The request to abridge time for an expert report was deferred to the trial judge.

The defendant Tad Nelson moved to permanently stay the action against him due to the plaintiff and co-defendant Regional Municipality of Halton's failure to immediately disclose a settlement agreement.

This agreement included an assignment of the plaintiff's claim against Nelson to Halton.

The court found that the settlement significantly altered the litigation landscape and the adversarial relationship between the parties, requiring immediate and full disclosure.

The delayed and partial disclosure constituted an abuse of process.

The court rejected arguments of no prejudice and delay in bringing the motion.

The action and Halton's crossclaim against Nelson were permanently stayed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking to amend and extend a prior default judgment (Zarei Action) to include new plaintiffs (Smith Action) and to obtain a declaration for a writ of seizure and sale against the defendants' diplomatic property.

The court dismissed the request to amend/extend the default judgment, holding that Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not permit adding new parties or causes of action not originally pleaded.

The court also found the enforcement request premature, as the default judgment had not yet been formally transmitted to the foreign state (Iran) as required by the State Immunity Act, and the 60-day period for Iran to challenge the judgment had not expired.

However, the court granted a sealing order for the unredacted materials of the new plaintiffs due to a credible fear of reprisal.

The Applicants sought costs following a partial success in an application concerning insurance coverage, specifically the duty to defend and equitable allocation among insurers.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the Applicants against AIG and Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada (RSA) for the duty to defend issue, finding the Applicants overwhelmingly successful on that point.

Costs related to the exhaustion of self-insured retentions (SIRs)/deductibles were deferred to a future trial of the issue, as neither party fully succeeded.

Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. was ordered to pay reduced costs due to its partial success on a specific "Single Retention Endorsement" interpretation.

The defendant, Yin Liang, appealed an Associate Justice's order granting the plaintiff, Suevilia Development Corporation, leave to amend its Statement of Claim to add Ms. Liang's husband, Hanyu Zhao, as a defendant and to plead claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent conveyance.

The appeal court reviewed the Associate Judge's decision on the applicable tests under Rule 26.01 and Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including issues of non-compensable prejudice, limitation periods, and whether the proposed amendments disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's decision regarding the limitation period or the tenability of the fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent conveyance claims.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant Skyservice Business Aviation Inc. brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike allegations of vicarious liability for sexual harassment from the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, arguing that it does not disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court found that sexual harassment is not an independent tort in Ontario and that section 46.3 of the Human Rights Code expressly excludes vicarious liability for sexual harassment against an employer.

The motion to strike was granted, with leave to amend denied for this specific tort, but allowing for amendments related to other Code infringements under section 46.1.

The Applicant sought dependant support from the Estates of his grandparents and uncle under the Succession Law Reform Act, and an order impressing assets with a trust.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Applicant was not a dependant of any of the deceaseds as he was not receiving regular support immediately before their deaths.

The court also found no evidence that his uncle had demonstrated a settled intention to treat him as a child of his family, nor was there a basis for a resulting trust, constructive trust, or proprietary estoppel claim.

This endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action as vexatious and an abuse of process.

The court awarded costs to the defendants, applying principles for self-represented litigants' costs.

The Attorney General's costs were awarded as sought, Ms. Goldenfajn-Abrahams's costs were reduced due to an excessive hourly rate and hours, and Ms. Roll's (a self-represented lawyer) costs were awarded nominally due to insufficient evidence of lost opportunity costs, in line with the Benarroch decision.

This case involved a dispute between two groups (Strasser and Hung) who were partners in a land development project.

After deciding to end their partnership and divide the lands, an equalization payment was made based on appraisals.

The Plaintiffs (Strasser Group) sought rectification of the agreements and compensation, alleging a common mistake regarding future development charges on the industrial lands they received, which significantly inflated their value.

The court found that while a common mistake existed, the agreements themselves allocated the risk of such mistakes to the party owning the lands.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim for rectification, holding that rectification is for correcting errors in recording an agreement, not for changing the agreement itself due to a belatedly recognized error of judgment or unanticipated effects.

The Defendants' counterclaim was also dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the Family Responsibility Office (FRO), his former spouse, and her lawyer, seeking damages for alleged errors in enforcing child support arrears.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate issues regarding the accuracy of support arrears that had already been determined in multiple family law proceedings.

The court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the action as an abuse of process.

The applicants sought declarations concerning insurers’ duty to defend multiple opioid class actions, the insureds’ right to select a single defending policy, allocation of defence costs, exhaustion of SIRs and deductibles, and the terms on which insurers could receive defence-side reporting.

The court held that, subject to exhaustion of the relevant SIRs or deductibles, each applicant could select any single policy under which there was a duty to defend, and the selected insurer was required to pay all reasonable defence costs associated with covered claims even if those costs also furthered uncovered claims.

Time-on-risk allocation was accepted only as an equitable mechanism among insurers with concurrent obligations, not as a basis to reduce contractual defence obligations owed to the insureds.

The court further held that pre-tender defence costs could attract relief from forfeiture, that disputed SIR exhaustion issues required a trial, and that insurers seeking privileged defence-side reporting had to maintain robust ethical screens through a defence reporting agreement because both party-based and coverage-based conflicts were present.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a dismissed motion where the Plaintiff sought various interlocutory relief, including restoration of access and possession to leased premises.

The Defendant, who successfully opposed the motion, sought substantial indemnity costs, or partial indemnity in the alternative.

The Plaintiff argued costs should be deferred or significantly reduced, and that its principal, Floora Davachi, should not be personally liable.

The court awarded the Defendant partial indemnity costs, finding no basis for substantial indemnity, and held the Plaintiff and its principal personally liable for costs based on a prior agreement between counsel.

The bankrupt, his father, and a creditor (his former partner) brought overlapping motions in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The court ordered equitable set-off of multiple costs awards made in family and bankruptcy proceedings between the bankrupt and the creditor, effective September 28, 2018.

The court dismissed the father's claim for a charge over the balance of the costs award, finding that solicitor's liens and charging orders do not apply to non-lawyers who fund litigation.

The balance of the costs award was ordered payable to the bankruptcy trustee.

The court also dismissed the creditor's request for a stay of enforcement and declined to dismiss the creditor's civil action for delay at this stage.

The defendant David Smith was successful on a motion for a permanent stay of the action against him due to the plaintiffs' failure to disclose settlement agreements.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The defendant sought full indemnity costs, arguing the plaintiffs' conduct was an abuse of process.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct was misguided but not in bad faith, and awarded partial indemnity costs of $27,000 for the motion and $5,238.20 for the action.

The plaintiff tenant sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction to restore its access to a commercial leased premises after the defendant landlord changed the locks and terminated the lease for rent arrears and an intention to sell the property.

The plaintiff argued the termination was invalid because the 2021 lease was a new lease, not a renewal, and thus the landlord could not exercise a termination right tied to the renewal period.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the 2021 lease was a new lease rather than a renewal, and noted the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of approval for COVID-19 rent subsidies to trigger statutory protections.

The defendant moved to permanently stay the action as an abuse of process, arguing the plaintiffs failed to immediately disclose settlement and cooperation agreements reached with co-defendants.

The court found that the agreements fundamentally changed the litigation landscape from an adversarial to a cooperative relationship.

Applying the principles from Aecon and Handley Estate, the court held that the failure to immediately disclose these agreements constituted an abuse of process.

The action was permanently stayed against the moving defendant.