Marie-Andrée Vermette

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.

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.