Mitchell Wine

Following a successful pleadings motion that struck the claims against the defendant Empire Pace without leave to amend, the defendant sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $60,000.

The plaintiff argued the amount was excessive and suggested $25,000.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendant's costs should be limited by the plaintiff's own expected costs or by access to justice concerns, noting the defendant was removed from a complicated action.

The court fixed costs at $50,000 all inclusive.

The defendant, Olympia Trust Company, was successful on a pleadings motion in four proposed class actions and sought costs of approximately $61,000 on a substantial indemnity basis or $41,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the claim was excessive and suggested $20,000.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the defendant's costs should be limited by the plaintiffs' own costs expectations or access to justice concerns.

The court awarded costs to the defendant fixed at $35,000 all inclusive on a partial indemnity basis.

In four proposed class actions concerning investments in syndicated mortgages for land development projects, the defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' statements of claim.

The court struck out the claims against the individual directors and officers of the corporate defendants without leave to amend, finding that the pleadings failed to allege any independent tortious conduct or separate identity of interest from the corporations.

The statements of claim against the remaining defendants were struck out in their entirety with leave to deliver fresh as amended statements of claim.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action regarding her investment in a syndicated mortgage for a real estate development project.

The defendant developer, Empire Pace, brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the claims against it.

The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to enforce the syndicated mortgage because she was not a signatory to the contract, which was deemed to be under seal pursuant to the Land Registration Reform Act.

Furthermore, the court found that a standstill provision in the mortgage precluded enforcement without the approval of the construction lender, which had not been obtained.

The claims against Empire Pace were struck out without leave to amend.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action concerning investments in a syndicated mortgage for a land development project.

The Adi Development Defendants brought a motion to strike the Statement of Claim and dismiss the action against them.

Relying on reasons released simultaneously in a related action, the court held that the sealed contract rule prevented the plaintiff from suing to enforce the syndicated mortgage because he was not a party to it.

The motion was granted, and the claims against the Adi Development Defendants were struck out without leave to amend.

The defendant, Olympia Trust Company, brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' statements of claim in four proposed class actions concerning syndicated mortgage investments.

The court found that the statements of claim were ill-organized, prolix, unclear, and contravened the rules of pleading by including evidence, immaterial allegations, and argumentative statements.

The court struck out the statements of claim in their entirety against all defendants but granted the plaintiffs leave to deliver fresh as amended statements of claim.

A receiver sought to defeat an appeal from a court order approving the sale of real property (a residential condominium project for seniors) to Pinnacle International One Lands Inc. The appellant, Fortress, had competed for the property through a stalking horse bidding process and subsequently submitted competing offers.

The receiver accepted Pinnacle's offer.

Fortress appealed, relying solely on section 193(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, which provides an automatic right of appeal if property involved exceeds $10,000 in value.

The Court of Appeal held that the approval order did not "result in a loss" within the meaning of section 193(c) because the receiver could not have obtained a better deal than Pinnacle's offer.

The court found that Pinnacle's offer had superior practical value due to a higher deposit, all-cash financing, support from the first mortgagee, and the integrity of the sale process.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal of a partial summary judgment motion.

The appellants sought rescission of an agreement of purchase and sale and damages, with their claims being representative of 20 other similar outstanding actions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, awarding rescission to one appellant and damages to another (with calculation to be determined by the Superior Court).

The court addressed the costs of the partial summary judgment motions, considering offers to settle that included interest provisions and applied to multiple similar claims.

The court awarded costs to the appellants for the partial summary judgment motions while reducing the amount claimed due to the dismissal of motions against three individual defendants and the ongoing nature of the claims.

The appellant appealed an order from the Small Claims Court that struck out his claim against the respondent, a psychologist, based on expert witness immunity.

The appellant had sued the respondent for the return of $21,900 paid for a s. 30 Children's Law Reform Act assessment report, alleging errors, omissions, and failure to address abuse allegations.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the law on expert witness immunity in Canada is unsettled, particularly regarding whether it protects an expert from a breach of contract or negligence claim by their own client for recovery of fees.

The court held that such a novel legal issue should not be determined summarily and reinstated the claim.

The appellants purchased luxury hotel condominium units in the Trump International Hotel based on financial estimates provided by the developer, Talon.

The estimates projected significant returns but were based on uninformed opinions and understated expenses.

The appellants sued for misrepresentation.

The motion judge dismissed their claims, finding their reliance on the estimates unreasonable and barred by entire agreement clauses.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that reliance was reasonable and it would be unconscionable to enforce the exculpatory clauses given Talon's evasion of Securities Act protections.

The Court ordered rescission for one appellant and damages for the other.

The plaintiffs, victims of a serious motor vehicle accident, brought a motion to compel their former lawyers (the defendants) to produce all internal memos, notes, and emails from their files related to the plaintiffs' matters.

The defendants argued these documents were not client property.

The court granted the motion, distinguishing previous case law on file ownership in the context of a professional negligence action.

The Master emphasized that in a negligence claim against former counsel, the ownership of documents is largely irrelevant, and all non-privileged, relevant documents are producible.

The decision was guided by the principles of proportionality and timely access to justice, particularly in light of a pending summary judgment motion.

Following the dismissal of summary judgment motions in a dispute over the purchase of hotel condominium units in the Trump International Hotel in Toronto, the successful defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded due to alleged misconduct and their success on certain factual issues, or alternatively that the amount sought was excessive.

The court held that the litigation was not a case of divided success and that the plaintiffs ultimately failed on critical factual and legal elements of their claims.

Applying the principle that costs should be fair, reasonable, and within the expectations of the parties, the court awarded the successful defendants a reduced amount.

Costs of $58,000 inclusive were ordered.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to enforce a judgment under s. 258 of the Insurance Act against an insurer alleged to have issued a motor vehicle liability policy to the tortfeasor responsible for a catastrophic 1992 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs relied on circumstantial evidence, including an accident report listing a policy number, licence plate renewal applications, correspondence with insurers, and an affidavit from the tortfeasor’s daughter.

The court held that the evidentiary record was insufficient to establish on a balance of probabilities that the tortfeasor held a motor vehicle liability policy with the alleged insurer at the time of the accident.

Because the existence of such a policy was not proven, the remaining issues concerning assumption of liability, limitation defences, and damages were unnecessary to determine.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

Two purchasers of hotel condominium units in the Trump International Hotel in Toronto brought test‑case summary judgment motions seeking rescission and damages based on alleged misrepresentations and an alleged breach of an Ontario Securities Commission prospectus‑exemption ruling.

The purchasers relied primarily on an “Estimated Return on Investment” document that allegedly overstated revenues and understated expenses.

The court found the document contained multiple misrepresentations but held the plaintiffs’ claims nevertheless failed because their reliance on the estimates was not objectively reasonable in light of extensive contractual disclaimers, disclosure documents, and risk warnings.

The court further held the defendants did not breach the OSC exemption ruling and that statutory securities and condominium misrepresentation provisions were not engaged.

One plaintiff’s claims were also statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The moving party sought an order under Rule 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring $1.1 million from the proceeds of the sale of a Hamilton property to be paid into court for interim preservation pending litigation.

The dispute arose from a property investment arrangement between long‑time associates, where the moving party alleged entitlement to a proportionate share of the profits based on funds invested.

The court held that the moving party did not establish a proprietary claim to a specific fund because he was merely an investor and had no proprietary interest in the sale proceeds held in an investment account.

Even if the first branches of the test were met, the balance of convenience did not favour the order as there was no evidence the responding parties intended to dissipate assets or frustrate enforcement of a potential judgment.

The motion was therefore dismissed with costs.

The appellant sought a stay of proceedings on the basis of alleged unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, raising foundational questions about which criminal courts may grant remedies under s. 24(1).

The Supreme Court held, by majority, that a preliminary inquiry judge is not a court of competent jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies because that tribunal's authority is confined by the Criminal Code and does not include the remedial powers sought.

The Court further held that Charter remedies in criminal matters must generally fit within the existing procedural structure of the criminal process, with superior courts retaining jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances and appeals remaining governed by statutory routes.

The appeal was dismissed, although strong dissents would have found a s. 11(b) breach and stayed the proceedings.