Michael Tweedie

The plaintiff leasing company sought to enforce a personal guarantee and collateral mortgage granted by family members of the principals of a restaurant business in support of an equipment lease.

The defendants argued that their consent to the guarantee and mortgage was obtained through undue influence and without independent legal advice.

The court examined the principles governing undue influence in guarantee transactions, including the requirement that lenders be alert to manifestly disadvantageous transactions involving close relationships.

Given the vulnerable position of the sureties, the absence of meaningful independent legal advice, and circumstances placing the lender on notice of potential undue influence, the court found the guarantees and mortgage unenforceable.

The claims against the two sureties were therefore dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding her liable for malicious prosecution and defamation after she reported a workplace assault by the respondent to the police.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the deputy judge erred in law by failing to consider whether the police conducted an independent investigation and exercised unfettered discretion in laying the charge.

The court also found the deputy judge erred by reversing the burden of proof and improperly adding a fifth element of 'unequal relationship' to the test for malicious prosecution.

Following two procedural motions in a construction-related civil action, the successful party sought costs including on a substantial indemnity basis due to a prior settlement offer.

The court held that although the offer to settle was reasonable, the resulting order was not as favourable or more favourable than the offer and therefore did not justify substantial indemnity costs.

Applying the discretion under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the factors in rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the claimed legal fees and preparation time reasonable.

The successful party was awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by the motion judge and held it was bound by prior appellate authority.

On the respondent's concession, the court permitted the appellant to amend its corporate name to reflect its former and current names.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed an order declaring them vexatious litigants, arguing procedural irregularities in the application process.

The appellants contended that opposing counsel lacked authority to act for all applicants, the application judge lacked authority to hear the matter, the affidavit evidence was inadmissible, and the reasons were inconsistent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to any of the procedural complaints and upholding the vexatious litigant order.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the respondents due to the appellants' persistent groundless allegations.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 51.06 seeking dismissal of the action based on alleged admissions concerning the lease and the proper party to advance the claim.

The plaintiff also moved under Rules 5.04(2) and 26.01 to amend its statement of claim to add several affiliated corporate plaintiffs asserting losses arising from the failure of a franchised coffee shop allegedly caused by the landlord’s breach of a commercial lease.

The court held that the defendant failed to establish the stringent requirements for judgment based on admissions under Rule 51.06 because material factual and legal issues remained for trial, including interpretation of the lease obligations regarding paving.

The court further held that adding the proposed corporate plaintiffs after the expiry of the two‑year limitation period constituted the addition of new parties rather than correction of a misnomer.

Relying on appellate authority, the court found that the proposed amendment would violate the Limitations Act, 2002 and cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.

Following an earlier ruling declaring the respondent a vexatious litigant, multiple applicants sought costs of the proceeding.

The court found that the respondent’s conduct throughout the litigation, including unsupported allegations of misconduct, disregard of procedural orders, and repeated technical objections, justified an award of substantial indemnity costs.

The court reviewed each applicant’s bill of costs and assessed overall reasonableness, reducing or excluding amounts relating to deferred motions for security for costs and instances of over‑lawyering.

Several cost awards were fixed globally rather than assessed strictly by docketed hours.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to multiple applicant groups in varying amounts.

The applicants, comprising 27 parties adverse to the respondent in 14 different actions, brought an application to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent had a history of commencing multiple actions against his former lawyers and others, alleging widespread conspiracies and fraud after losing previous litigation.

The court found that the respondent persistently instituted vexatious proceedings without reasonable grounds, sought to relitigate previously decided issues, and failed to pay outstanding costs orders.

The court granted the application, prohibiting the respondent and his corporations from instituting or continuing any proceedings without prior leave of the court.

Following a trial in which the plaintiffs obtained judgment for $25,000 in punitive damages but failed on other claims, the court determined costs of the action.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $276,000, while the defendants argued costs should be limited given the modest recovery.

The court considered proportionality, the reasonable expectations of an unsuccessful party, and factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the plaintiffs were only moderately successful, the defendants’ deceitful conduct and litigation behaviour lengthened the proceeding and justified an enhanced costs award.

The court fixed costs payable by the defendants at $50,000 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

A group of related corporate plaintiffs alleged that a planning consultant and licensed real estate salesperson breached fiduciary duties during a land acquisition initiative by secretly purchasing the target property through his own company.

The court found that the consultant acted as an agent and fiduciary for the plaintiffs, given the trust placed in him, his role negotiating with the seller, and his undertaking to act on their behalf.

By failing to disclose his personal interest, misleading the plaintiffs about negotiations, and purchasing the property himself, the defendant placed himself in a conflict of interest and breached his fiduciary obligations.

Although the plaintiffs suffered no pecuniary loss and failed to establish negligence in the planning advice, the court held that the egregious and deceptive conduct warranted punitive damages.

Punitive damages of $25,000 were awarded to punish and deter such misconduct.