McGraw

The plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim brought a motion for security for costs against the defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim in a commercial lease dispute.

The moving party sought $45,000 in security.

The court found that the responding party had insufficient assets to satisfy a costs award and failed to establish impecuniosity.

The court ordered the responding party to post $25,000 in security for costs, payable in two tranches, balancing the need for protection against the risk of preventing a claim from proceeding.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff in an action arising from the purchase of a radiology clinic.

The plaintiff claimed it was impecunious and that its claim was not devoid of merit.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity and that the merits of the complex claim could not be properly assessed at the interlocutory stage.

Applying a holistic approach, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in the total amount of $80,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to amend their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim to claim a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a property owned by the plaintiff, and for leave to issue and register the CPL.

The parties, who are family members, were involved in a dispute over pooled funds and property investments.

The court found that while there was a triable issue regarding the defendants' claim to an interest in the property, the equities favoured the plaintiff.

The property was not unique, damages would be a satisfactory remedy, and the harm to the plaintiff in granting the CPL outweighed the harm to the defendants.

The motion to issue the CPL was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay under Rule 24.01.

The action arose from a commercial lease dispute where the plaintiffs alleged the defendant unlawfully changed the locks on a garage.

The plaintiffs commenced the action in 2016 but took no steps between December 2018 and May 2023.

The court found the delay of over four years to be inordinate and inexcusable, noting the self-represented plaintiff's failure to communicate with the defendant.

Given the significant delay and lack of evidence regarding document preservation, the court found actual prejudice and a substantial risk that a fair trial was no longer possible.

The action was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff in an action arising from a commercial lease dispute.

The plaintiff conceded it had insufficient assets to pay a costs award but argued its claims had a good chance of success and its impoverishment was caused by the defendants' conduct.

The court found the merits could not be determined on an interlocutory basis due to disputed facts and credibility issues.

Applying a holistic approach, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in the amount of $30,000 for the corporate defendants and $15,000 for the real estate agent defendant, up to and including examinations for discovery.

The defendant insurance broker brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a Delaware limited partnership with no assets in Ontario.

The plaintiff was seeking over $46 million in damages for denied coverage under a fidelity bond.

The court found that the plaintiff was a foreign resident, a nominal plaintiff, and had insufficient assets to satisfy a costs award.

Applying a holistic approach, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in the amount of $525,000.

The self-represented plaintiff in a medical malpractice action brought motions to strike the defendant physician's Statement of Defence, compel answers to a third set of written discovery questions, and examine non-party witnesses.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the plaintiff's motions as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.02.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the defence, finding the defendant had adequately answered nearly 300 questions and fulfilled his production obligations.

The court ordered the defendant to answer two specific questions relevant to the pleadings but otherwise dismissed the request for further answers.

The cross-motion and the motion to examine non-parties were also dismissed or adjourned.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to correct the name of the defendants in their statement of claim from various Sienna entities to Algoma Manor Nursing Home.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence resulting in the death of a resident at the nursing home.

The court found that the 'litigating finger' was clearly pointed at Algoma Manor Nursing Home in the original pleading, as it was specifically referenced and was the only nursing home in the town.

The court held this was a case of misnomer and that the proposed defendant would suffer no actual prejudice.

The motion to correct the misnomer was granted.

The plaintiff in a solicitor's negligence action brought a motion for leave to amend her statement of claim to add allegations of litigation misconduct against the defendants' counsel.

The proposed amendments related to the removal of labels from boxes containing the plaintiff's files before they were delivered.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendments did not arise from the same factual matrix as the original claim and did not disclose a legally tenable cause of action for litigation misconduct.

The court also noted the motion appeared to be brought primarily for tactical reasons to bolster a separate motion to remove the defendants' counsel.

The defendant brought two motions in an action arising from a fire that damaged equipment at a mining project.

The first motion sought to compel the third party insurance broker to answer refusals from examinations for discovery.

The second motion sought to compel a non-party independent adjuster to produce its complete file and attend an examination.

The court ordered the insurance broker to answer most of the refusals, finding them relevant to the allegations regarding the review of insurance coverages.

Regarding the non-party production, the court found that the adjuster's file contained relevant documents but ordered a staged approach to production to balance the interests of the non-party.

The motion to examine the adjuster was adjourned pending the resolution of documentary production.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to consolidate four separate actions arising from a franchise dispute, including claims against the franchisor, accountants, and lawyers.

All parties consented except for one defendant accountant.

The court applied Rule 6.01 and found that the actions shared common questions of fact and arose from the same series of transactions, specifically the plaintiffs' reliance on allegedly inaccurate financial statements.

The court granted the motion to consolidate the actions and ordered that a related third-party claim be heard at the same time or immediately after the consolidated action.

The plaintiffs commenced an action in 2015 but took no steps for over five years while the principal of the plaintiff corporations faced criminal charges.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing to extend the time to set the action down for trial, but later abandoned it and served a trial record.

The defendants brought cross-motions to proceed with the status hearing.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, as they unilaterally held the action in abeyance without communicating with the defendants.

The court also found the plaintiffs failed to rebut the strong presumption of prejudice arising from the delay.

The action was dismissed for delay.

In a commercial lease dispute involving allegations of rent overpayment and underpayment, both the plaintiff tenant and defendant landlord brought motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery.

The court applied the principles of relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure, ordering both parties to answer certain questions and produce specific financial and lease-related documents, while dismissing requests that were overbroad or disproportionate.

In two related actions arising from a construction dispute, the Concord Parties moved to stay the Varone Parties' breach of trust claims under the Construction Lien Act upon payment into court of the admitted claim amount.

The Varone Parties brought a cross-motion to withhold disclosure and production of certain documents until a threshold issue regarding the nature of the services agreement was determined.

The court granted the stay, finding that the trust claims would be moot once fully secured by the payment into court, and that a stay would result in material efficiencies without causing injustice.

The court dismissed the discovery motion, concluding that the threshold issue was not clearly severable from the other claims, including fraud and conspiracy, and that the Varone Parties would not suffer serious prejudice from full disclosure.

The plaintiff sought costs of $12,000 on a partial indemnity scale following substantially successful motions to amend her Statement of Claim and for document production.

The defendant argued for no costs, citing personal circumstances during the pandemic and arguing costs should be in the cause.

The court found the defendant's delay in consenting to the amendments was unnecessary and added costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $7,000.

The defendants requested that the plaintiff's action be dismissed or stayed under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The self-represented plaintiff, a former student suspended from Mohawk College, had commenced three separate actions arising from the same incidents, claiming $100,000,000 in damages in this third action.

The court found the claim against the individual defendants and 'Security and Emergency Management' to be frivolous and vexatious, as no specific allegations were pleaded against them, and dismissed those claims.

The action against Mohawk College was stayed, with the plaintiff granted a limited opportunity to amend the claim and lift the stay upon satisfying certain conditions, including paying a prior costs order.

The defendant brought a third motion to dismiss the action for delay, which was dismissed on terms with an expedited timetable.

The plaintiff sought costs of the motion on a partial indemnity scale, while the defendant argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found that although the defendant was unsuccessful, it was not unreasonable to bring the motion given the 15-year history of the action and previous judicial criticism of the plaintiff's delay.

The court ordered the parties to bear their own costs.

Following a motion where the defendants were largely unsuccessful in seeking further particulars and striking paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim, the plaintiff sought costs of $11,923.04.

The court found the plaintiff was substantially successful and the defendants' motion was largely unnecessary.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $8,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff brought a motion to vary a 2018 consent order that dismissed its motion to set aside a registrar's dismissal order.

The plaintiff argued that its former counsel made an inadvertent mistake by agreeing to dismiss the motion against all defendants, rather than just the MEC defendants, and sought to continue the action against the Pace defendants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no common mistake, fraud, or misrepresentation to justify varying the consent order, which accurately reflected the fairly negotiated minutes of settlement.

The court emphasized the relative sanctity of consent orders and the strong presumption in favour of the finality of settlements.

The defendants brought a motion to have a 2015 action tried together with two earlier actions (the Loan Actions) which had already been ordered to be tried together.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the 2015 action did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the Loan Actions, and there were no common questions of fact or law.

Furthermore, the court noted the defendants' unexplained delay in bringing the motion, which would have unnecessarily delayed the trial of the 2015 action currently scheduled to proceed.