Maya M. Kanani

Following a trial where the plaintiff was wholly unsuccessful in his claim for personal injury damages arising from an arrest by security guards, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The plaintiff sought to be exempted from costs as a public interest litigant, which the court rejected due to his significant financial motive.

The defendants sought elevated costs, alleging the plaintiff's claims of racial profiling and excessive force were scandalous, but the court found the claims were arguable and supported by some evidence.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs fixed at $236,000.00.

The plaintiff moved to not enter judgment in accordance with a jury verdict that dismissed his personal injury and racial profiling claims arising from an arrest by mall security for trespassing.

The plaintiff argued there was no evidence to support the jury's findings that the defendants had reasonable grounds to arrest him, did not use racial stereotypes, used reasonable force, and that he suffered no damages.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants led 'some evidence' on each issue, including expert testimony on use of force and medical causation, which the jury was entitled to accept.

Judgment was ordered to be entered in accordance with the jury's verdict.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for delay, the successful defendants sought costs.

The defendants requested a modest $5,000 each, despite incurring over $100,000 each in legal expenses over a decade of unproductive litigation.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the costs, focusing on her medical accommodations and stating she could not afford the requested amount.

The court exercised its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, reducing the requested amount and ordering the plaintiff to pay $3,500 to each of the four defendants, totaling $14,000.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The plaintiff, Alma Cherry, requested an adjournment due to health issues and the volume of materials recently served on her.

The court granted the adjournment, scheduling the motion for December 1, 2025, and directed the defendants not to serve any further materials on Ms. Cherry before the motion.

The court clarified that related proceedings involving Ms. Cherry and Novex Insurance Company would not affect the timing of the present motion.

The appellant, Marnie Affleck, appealed the dismissal of her claim for negligent infliction of nervous shock and defamation against Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., Sunrise of Erin Mills, and several individuals.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s findings, agreeing that the respondents’ actions were reasonable and that the defamation claim was not pleaded with sufficient specificity.

The court also found no error in the trial judge’s factual findings or costs award, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The plaintiff, Alma Cherry, brought a motion to dismiss third-party claims for delay.

The motion, previously adjourned at her request, was scheduled peremptorily for April 8, 2025.

On the hearing date, Cherry again sought an adjournment, citing complaints about opposing counsel and requests for further discovery materials.

The court authorized her to obtain an audio recording of the discovery, provided all counsel receive a copy before it is used in court.

The court explained that further requests regarding discovery refusals or document production must be brought by motion before the Associate Justices.

The court set deadlines for all parties regarding upcoming motions and adjourned Cherry’s motion to April 13, 2026, making clear that this would not affect the defendants’ right to proceed with their own motions.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of an appraisal award determining the replacement cost and actual cash value of dental equipment damaged in a fire.

The insurer argued the appraisal panel exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding the equipment needed replacement rather than cleaning, which it characterized as a coverage issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the panel properly confined itself to valuation issues under Statutory Condition 11.

The court also rejected the insurer's arguments that it was denied procedural fairness during the appraisal process.

The plaintiff, Marnie Affleck, sued Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., Sunrise of Erin Mills, Jennifer Seehra, and Elisabette Garcia for negligent infliction of nervous shock and defamation, seeking substantial damages.

The claims against her sister and father's estate were dismissed earlier.

The plaintiff, self-represented, alleged that the defendants unreasonably impeded her ability to see her mother, a resident at Sunrise, causing her trauma and injuries.

The court found that the defendants' actions were reasonable and justified, taken to protect the mother from financial and emotional abuse by the plaintiff, and to maintain a safe environment for staff and other residents.

The court also found the plaintiff's evidence lacked credibility and medical support for her alleged injuries.

The claims for negligent infliction of nervous shock and defamation were dismissed.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $330,000 to the defendants due to the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct and lack of preparation.

The plaintiff, a physiotherapist, suffered an electric shock while adjusting a bed at the defendant's clinic.

The defendant admitted liability.

The court assessed damages for the plaintiff's injuries, which included concussion-like symptoms, headaches, migraines, and soft-tissue pain.

The court found that while the plaintiff suffered a serious injury, her condition had improved significantly, allowing her to work full-time and participate in physical activities.

The court awarded $100,000 in general damages, $375,000 for past loss of income, $159,443.14 for future care costs, and additional amounts for special damages, subrogated claims, and Family Law Act claims for her parents, totaling $742,822.73.

Claims for future loss of income were dismissed.

The defendant, Mercedes-Benz (Thornhill), brought a motion seeking to set aside a costs order obtained by the plaintiff without proper notice, to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay, and to establish a litigation timetable.

The plaintiff's counsel failed to appear at the hearing despite requesting an oral argument.

The court found that the plaintiff's counsel engaged in "sharp practice" by obtaining the costs order without proper notice and by misrepresenting the defendant's position.

The court set aside the costs order, imposed a detailed timetable for the action, and ordered the plaintiff's counsel to personally pay costs of $3,500 to the defendant due to his inappropriate conduct and failure to appear.

The applicant sought a Non-Earner Benefit (NEB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, relying on independent medical examinations which concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's testimony unreliable due to numerous inconsistencies regarding her marital status, gym attendance, prior accidents, and work history.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's unrefuted medical evidence and noted the applicant's failure to provide corroborating evidence for her claims.