M.L. Edwards

The defendants sought costs personally against the plaintiff's counsel following a mistrial.

The mistrial was declared due to the plaintiff's counsel's failure to disclose a conflict of interest involving her husband's medical assessment company, which retained the plaintiff's expert witnesses and significantly marked up their invoices.

The court found that the counsel's conduct frustrated and interfered with the administration of justice, noting her lack of candour and failure to adhere to representations previously made to the Law Society.

The court ordered the plaintiff's counsel to personally pay the costs of the mistrial.

In a personal injury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sought leave to adduce a late-served loss of income expert report.

The court denied leave under Rule 53.08, finding no reasonable explanation for the delay and prejudice to the defendants.

During the trial, a voir dire revealed that the plaintiff's law firm had retained medical experts through an assessment company owned by the spouse of the firm's principal lawyer.

The assessment company had also significantly marked up the expert's invoice.

Finding an egregious and undisclosed conflict of interest that breached the duty of loyalty, the court declared a mistrial.

Following a judgment awarding the plaintiff approximately $174,000 in damages for a failed real estate transaction, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff had served an offer to settle for $135,000 plus costs, which the defendants did not accept.

Because the final judgment was considerably more favourable than the plaintiff's offer, the court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Costs were fixed at $18,000 all inclusive, and prejudgment interest of $7,099.57 was also awarded.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) after the defendants terminated an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The defendants claimed the agreement was terminated because the plaintiffs failed to provide a certified cheque for the deposit, though the agreement only required a 'negotiable cheque'.

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a reasonable claim to an interest in the land, noting the property's unique feature of abutting a public park.

Concluding that the defendants likely repudiated the agreement to seek a higher purchase price in a rising market, the court held that the equities strongly favoured the plaintiffs and granted the CPL.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendant failed to close on an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The defendant had struck out the financing condition but was ultimately unable to obtain a mortgage.

The plaintiff re-listed and sold the property for a lower price.

The court found the defendant in breach of the agreement and awarded the plaintiff damages for the difference in purchase price and carrying costs, less the deposit already paid.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment on her counterclaim, alleging the plaintiff bank breached an oral agreement to accept $150 monthly payments and halt collection proceedings, thereby violating the Consumer Protection Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a previous judge had already determined as a fact that no such oral agreement existed.

Without the agreement, the defendant's claims had no foundation.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against the lawyers who represented his former employer in a prior wrongful dismissal action, alleging they conspired to manipulate facts and breached a fiduciary duty to him.

The defendant lawyers brought a motion to strike the statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendants owed no duty to the plaintiff and their conduct in representing their clients was protected by the doctrine of absolute privilege.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

Following a failed motion by the defendants to have their trial costs paid by various litigation loan providers, the loan providers sought their costs of the motion.

The court declined to award costs to the loan providers, finding that the defendants' motion raised a novel issue regarding the enforcement of a costs award against a litigation loan provider and the requirement for court approval of litigation loan agreements.

Given the novelty of the issue, the court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer a class action regarding alleged systemic abuse at a psychiatric facility from Toronto to Barrie.

The court applied a holistic approach to the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While Barrie had proximity to the facility and witnesses, the Regional Senior Justice noted that due to courtroom availability and backlog, a trial in Barrie might ultimately be moved elsewhere in the Central East Region.

The court concluded that Toronto's judicial resources and specialized class action judges would better ensure a just and expeditious determination.

The motion to transfer was dismissed.

The Town of Aurora was entirely successful on a contempt motion against the self-represented plaintiff.

The Town sought costs of $16,200.98 on a full indemnity basis.

The court awarded costs of $12,000 on a full indemnity basis, noting the plaintiff's prior involvement in contempt motions and the need to deter contemptuous behaviour.

The court also set a schedule for the plaintiff's motion to add parties.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a claim for lien and vacate a certificate of action, arguing the plaintiff was an owner, not a contractor, under the Construction Act.

The plaintiff claimed he was a contractor who provided labour and materials for a house construction.

The court found that the plaintiff and defendants had a partnership agreement to build and sell the house for profit, making the plaintiff an owner.

As an owner cannot lien their own property, the motion was granted, and the claim for lien was discharged.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The appellant argued that a period of delay caused by missing video disclosure should not have been attributed to the defence.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that defence counsel failed to exercise due diligence by not reviewing the disclosure until the eve of trial.

The appeal was dismissed as the net delay fell well within the Jordan ceiling.

Following a lengthy trial where the plaintiff was awarded $50,000 but the defendants obtained a costs award of over $3.4 million, the defendants moved to recover those costs from four non-party litigation loan providers who had advanced funds to the plaintiff.

The court declined to order costs against the non-parties, finding that while the loans carried exorbitant interest rates, providing them did not amount to an abuse of process under the 'person of straw' test or the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The court also noted that while litigation loans should be approved by the court in class proceedings, the statutory requirement to do so did not exist at the time the loans were made.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim for lack of jurisdiction, the successful defendants sought costs of $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued for costs of $5,000.

The court considered the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality under Rule 57.01, noting that the losing party should not be expected to pay for all additional costs incurred by senior counsel when junior counsel argued the motion.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 all-inclusive, reflecting what an informed client could reasonably expect to pay for a motion of moderate complexity.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for lack of jurisdiction or to stay it on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The dispute arose from a contract between the corporate plaintiff and the corporate defendant, which was accepted over the internet and contained a forum selection clause designating Germany.

The individual plaintiff attempted to plead the claims in tort and conspiracy to ground jurisdiction in Ontario.

The court found no real and substantial connection to Ontario, as the corporate defendant did not carry on business there and the tort claims were merely an attempt to convert a breach of contract action.

The motion to dismiss the action was granted.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's action challenging the termination of her Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.

The plaintiff alleged the ODSP was negligent in suspending her benefits after she transferred her condominium to her son.

The court struck the claim, finding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the governing statute provides immunity for good faith decisions and establishes no private law duty of care.

The court also held the action was an abuse of process, as the plaintiff had previously initiated and abandoned multiple proceedings in various forums regarding the same issue.

The plaintiffs (purchasers in a real estate transaction) brought a motion to stay or dismiss a separate action commenced by the defendant real estate brokerage for unpaid commission, arguing it should have been brought as a counterclaim and was an abuse of process.

The defendant brokerage brought a cross-motion to transfer the plaintiffs' action from Toronto to Oshawa, where multiple related actions were already pending.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding it was not an abuse of process for the brokerage to commence a separate action given its dual role as plaintiff and defendant with separate counsel.

The court granted the cross-motion to transfer the Toronto action to Oshawa, noting the property, witnesses, and related proceedings were all located in the Oshawa area.

The applicant, charged with numerous firearms and drug trafficking offences following an undercover operation, sought a bail review and a s. 525 hearing.

He argued that the COVID-19 pandemic and delay constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court found no material change, noting COVID-19 was considered at the original hearing and the delay was not unreasonable.

The court upheld the detention on the tertiary ground, concluding that releasing the applicant, given the formidable case and serious firearms charges, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel of record, arguing that counsel's ongoing business relationship with the plaintiff would inevitably make him a witness regarding the plaintiff's loss of income claim.

The court applied the factors from Essa (Township) v. Guergis and found the motion premature, as the plaintiff's income loss claim was currently based solely on tax returns.

The motion was dismissed with leave to renew if the plaintiff pursues an income loss claim inconsistent with his tax returns.

The applicant sought a bail review following a denial of bail, arguing a material change in circumstances due to a stronger supervision plan with electronic monitoring and unmet medical needs in custody.

The applicant was charged with weapons offences following a shootout in a residential area.

The court found that the Crown had a strong case and that the tertiary ground for detention was engaged.

The court concluded that releasing the applicant would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and dismissed the application.