M. Huneault

A defendant sought costs following the discontinuance of an action commenced in a different county that duplicated relief already pursued in an existing representative proceeding.

The court considered Rule 23.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the “justified action test” applicable to discontinued actions.

It held the plaintiff had no justification for commencing the second action because it duplicated claims already being advanced in an ongoing Toronto proceeding.

The court characterized the conduct as violating the rule against multiplicity of proceedings and as litigation behaviour warranting sanction.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendant despite the absence of formal service of the statement of claim.

The court provided directions in an interpleader proceeding concerning funds paid into court following the cessation of payroll services operations by a corporate respondent.

Approximately $2.39 million held in a payroll account had been paid into court, and an advisor was appointed to administer claims by numerous clients asserting entitlement to the funds.

The advisor reported that a portion of the fund could be traced to specific claimants while the remainder was co‑mingled and proposed a distribution allocating traceable funds to identified clients and the balance pro rata.

The court directed further reporting, service of materials to claimants, and procedures for claimants to file notices of appearance and submissions regarding the proposed distribution.

A further hearing was scheduled to determine whether the proposed distribution or an alternative should be approved.