Matthew P. Maurer

The Crown brought a Rule 21 motion to strike various paragraphs and counterclaims from the Statements of Defence of Sanjay Madan, Shalini Madan, Chinmaya Madan, and Ujjawal Madan.

The Crown alleged that the pleadings contained untenable claims of contributory negligence, frivolous and vexatious allegations, and counterclaims that were not tenable in law, including claims of direct tort liability against the Crown and vicarious liability for intrusion upon seclusion.

The court granted the Crown's motion, finding that the defence of contributory negligence is not available for fraud, the Crown is immune from direct tort liability for systemic negligence, and no private law duty of care or vicarious liability for intrusion upon seclusion was established based on the facts pleaded.

The court also struck pleadings related to the Crown's conduct in the litigation as improper.

The applicant sought a declaration regarding the interpretation of a credit agreement and warrant certificate.

The applicant argued that the respondent could only exercise its share purchase warrants upon a liquidity event or additional security issuance.

The respondent argued the warrants could be exercised at any time.

The court applied principles of commercial contract interpretation, finding that the preamble clearly allowed exercise at any time and that restricting exercise to triggering events would lead to a commercial absurdity given the risk the respondent assumed.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant moved for costs after the plaintiff discontinued its initial action and immediately commenced a new action with additional parties, preserving the original claim.

The court dismissed the motion for costs, finding that the discontinuance was a procedural step to restart litigation and add parties, not a substantive end to the dispute.

The court held that the plaintiff had a bona fide cause of action and that the defendant's preparation for a stay motion was premature given ongoing communications.

The appellant, a distributor of the respondent's product, appealed a summary judgment awarding the respondent payment for goods sold and delivered in the amount of $47,301.92 USD plus interest and costs.

The appellant raised defences of waiver and failure to mitigate, claiming the respondent had allegedly agreed to take back unrelated product ordered years prior.

The Court of Appeal found no factual foundation for either defence and upheld the summary judgment.

The court also rejected the appellant's challenge to the costs award on a substantial indemnity basis, finding the offer to settle complied with applicable rules.

Bone Safety Signs, LLC (Bone) brought a motion for summary judgment against Work Zone Safety Products Inc. (Work Zone) for unpaid invoices totaling $47,301.92 USD for temporary traffic control products.

Work Zone attempted to rely on a credit note issued by Bone, claiming defenses of estoppel, promissory estoppel, and equitable set-off, and alleging product defects and a duty to mitigate damages.

The court found that Work Zone did not act in accordance with the agreed-upon terms of the credit note, having unilaterally attempted to return goods "collect" and claim additional costs.

The court dismissed Work Zone's defenses, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the unpaid invoices.

The court also found Work Zone's counterclaim for breach of contract and losses due to product defects to be weak, lacking corroborative evidence and inconsistent with prior statements.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of Bone for the unpaid amount plus interest, and costs were fixed at $19,192, with an order for the return of security for costs to Bone.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend its statement of claim to add the defendant's wife as a party and assert allegations of fraudulent conveyance, fraudulent misrepresentation, and alter ego liability.

The defendant opposed, arguing lack of particulars and that some claims were statute-barred.

The court found the proposed claims were not statute-barred as the limitation period commenced upon discovery of new facts.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to amend due to insufficient particulars of the alleged fraud, but granted leave to amend the statement of claim upon providing the necessary details.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The self-represented plaintiffs commenced an action in Small Claims Court for damages arising from a condominium purchase.

During trial, it became evident they intended to claim rescission, a remedy outside the Small Claims Court's jurisdiction.

The trial judge stayed the proceeding to allow them to seek a transfer.

The plaintiffs moved to transfer the action to the Superior Court of Justice and amend their claim.

The court granted the motion, finding it appropriate to allow the plaintiffs to pursue their claim in its full dimensions, despite procedural defects in their motion materials.

Costs were awarded to the defendant as the motion was necessitated by the plaintiffs' mistakes.

The plaintiff sought costs following the defendant's unsuccessful motion for a stay of proceedings.

The plaintiff requested $29,073.51, including substantial indemnity costs based on an Offer to Settle.

The defendant argued the costs were excessive and proposed $10,000.00, also seeking a credit for prior interlocutory motions.

The court found the plaintiff was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale, rejecting the substantial indemnity claim because the Offer to Settle did not represent a substantive compromise.

The court also declined to award costs for prior procedural motions due to insufficient information regarding success.

Ultimately, the court awarded the plaintiff $12,847.38, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, deeming this amount fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The defendant, a lawyer who purchased the plaintiff's legal practice, brought a motion to temporarily stay the plaintiff's breach of contract action pending the outcome of an ongoing Law Society investigation into the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's license had been suspended on an interlocutory basis.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Law Society's findings would likely be inadmissible, the defendant could lead independent evidence on the issues, and a stay would cause injustice by delaying the plaintiff's access to the courts.

The plaintiffs sued a residential developer alleging breach of contract regarding the height of a finished basement ceiling in a newly constructed home.

They relied on a structural upgrades price sheet referencing a standard basement ceiling height of approximately 7’10”.

The court found the parties’ agreement of purchase and sale contained no contractual term specifying a basement ceiling height and included an entire agreement clause excluding collateral representations.

The plaintiffs also failed to raise the alleged deficiency during the pre‑delivery inspection or before closing.

The claim was dismissed as the evidence did not establish a contractual breach and the wrong corporate defendant had been named.

Following dismissal of a claim after a short civil trial, the successful defendant sought approximately $61,000 in costs.

The court considered the principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including fairness, proportionality, and the purposes of costs awards.

The defendant had made a Rule 49 offer to settle that was more favourable than the judgment obtained at trial, triggering the presumption of substantial indemnity costs after the offer date.

While recognizing the plaintiffs were self‑represented and faced financial hardship, the court held that costs must follow the event and cannot be determined based on sympathy.

Applying proportionality in a simplified procedure action, the court fixed a fair and reasonable all‑inclusive costs award of $50,000 payable by the plaintiffs.

Following an appeal from a master's ruling, the court issued an amended endorsement addressing costs.

The respondent to the appeal sought costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of an offer to settle and substantial indemnity thereafter, relying on an earlier no-costs settlement offer rejected by the appellants.

The appellants argued they were entitled to costs for a successful motion to stay the master's order pending appeal and that the respondent’s claimed appeal costs were excessive.

The court awarded the respondent most of its requested appeal costs but deducted a portion attributable to the stay motion, while granting the appellants partial costs for that motion.

After set-off, the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent $6,043.57 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following an unsuccessful appeal, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful respondent sought costs calculated on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of a rejected offer to settle and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The appellants argued they were entitled to costs for a motion to stay the Master’s ruling and that the respondent’s claimed costs were excessive because the appeal issues mirrored those before the Master.

The court rejected both arguments, finding the stay motion unnecessary and the requested amount reasonable when compared to the appellants’ own costs outline.

Costs were fixed in favour of the successful respondent.

The defendants appealed a master's order refusing to strike portions of a statement of claim referring to alleged unethical business practices.

The plaintiff alleged workplace injuries caused by repetitive strain from extensive keyboarding while creating false online dating profiles as part of the defendants’ business operations, and advanced a claim including waiver of tort.

The appellants argued that references to ethics were not legally provable and would improperly shift the litigation toward debates about business ethics rather than legal liability.

The court held that the master's decision appropriately balanced the removal of inflammatory language with preserving factual context relevant to the pleaded causes of action.

At the pleadings stage, the references were permissible as part of the factual narrative supporting the waiver of tort theory and should not be struck.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a Mareva injunction to restrain certain defendants from transferring or dissipating assets pending trial in an action alleging breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation arising from a failed financing arrangement.

The court considered the established test for Mareva injunctions, including the requirement of a strong prima facie case and the risk of dissipation of assets.

On the limited interim record, the court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a strong prima facie case at least with respect to breach of contract and an existing $80,000 judgment.

However, evidence of assets and risk of dissipation was limited.

The court granted a narrowly tailored interim interim Mareva injunction restraining dealings with specific real property owned by a corporate defendant and funds in a bank account held by an individual defendant pending a full hearing.