Nadia Condotta

The plaintiff, a former foreperson for the TTC, claimed he was constructively dismissed after the TTC failed to accommodate his request for an exemption from its mandatory COVID-19 mask policy.

The plaintiff alleged that wearing a mask exacerbated his migraine disorder and caused dyspnea and palpitations.

The court dismissed the constructive dismissal claim, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because there was no medical evidence linking his migraine disorder to his inability to wear a mask.

The court held that the plaintiff repudiated his employment contract by refusing to comply with an essential condition of his job.

The plaintiff was awarded $2,792 for one week of unpaid sick leave that the TTC had previously agreed to pay.

Following a summary judgment where the plaintiff was awarded significant damages for breach of a promissory note but failed on claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff sought costs of $58,499.81.

The defendant argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court noted the plaintiff beat their settlement offer but declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $40,000 payable by the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against his former business partner for breach of a promissory note.

The defendant argued the contract was frustrated by a third-party fraud and challenged the escalatory interest rate, which reached 60%.

The court rejected the frustration defence as improperly pleaded and factually unsupported, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court enforced the promissory note's 60% interest rate, finding it did not violate the Criminal Code due to transitional provisions, and awarded the plaintiff over $3.6 million.

The defendant moved to dismiss a defamation action brought by a long-term care home and its CEO regarding tweets she made alleging elder abuse and neglect of her mother.

The court granted the anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding that the tweets related to a matter of public interest and that the plaintiffs failed to show sufficient harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Papageorgiou J. dated May 1, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding parties failed to provide a Costs Outline.

This endorsement addresses a return of a matter concerning limitations on a Mareva injunction and living expenses.

Despite previous opportunities, no evidence was filed by the parties.

The Wei defendants did not seek any limitations.

Counsel for the Lin defendants reported difficulties obtaining instructions, non-compliance with court orders (affidavit, cross-examinations, costs), and a potential conflict of interest between Ms. Shinchi and Mr. Lin.

The plaintiffs highlighted the Lin defendants' continued non-compliance and alleged deliberate avoidance of asset disclosure.

The court ordered the Lin defendants to provide their address for personal service within seven days, failing which substituted service for a contempt motion via email was authorized.

The court declined to schedule further return dates for Mareva injunction issues and reserved costs.

The plaintiff sought to enforce a settlement agreement reached at a pretrial conference, moving for judgment under Rule 49.09(a).

The court granted leave to bring the motion and found that a valid settlement agreement had been reached.

However, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 49.09(a) to refuse enforcement of the settlement, finding that it would lead to a clear injustice due to the recent discovery of serious structural deficiencies in the defendants' home, which were unknown at the time of the purported settlement.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful Mareva injunction motion brought by the Plaintiffs.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the Defendants due to their reprehensible conduct, including the filing of a false affidavit by one defendant, and the overall lack of merit in the defence presented by both groups of defendants, which unnecessarily prolonged and complicated the litigation.

The court emphasized the complexity of the case, the Plaintiffs' complete success, and the reasonable foreseeability of a significant costs order.

The plaintiff, Debt Aid Consulting Inc., a debt relief marketing company, sued the defendant, Financial Rescue LLC, a competitor, alleging breaches of the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act, the Business Names Act, and the Competition Act, and tortious interference with economic relations.

The plaintiff sought declarations that the defendant was not entitled to conduct business or advertise in Canada, and damages for lost business and increased advertising costs.

The court found that the defendant's activities were marketing services and did not fall within the definitions of a "collection agency" or "debt settlement service" under the CDSSA.

The court also found no evidence of false or misleading representations under the Competition Act or the elements required for intentional interference with economic relations.

The action was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiffs previously obtained a Mareva injunction against the defendants.

The parties returned to court to address alleged deficiencies in the defendants' asset disclosure affidavits, requests for living and business operating expenses, and potential limits on the injunction.

The court found the defendants' affidavits deficient and ordered further and better affidavits with supporting documentation.

The court also granted interim interim orders allowing specific monthly amounts for living and business operating expenses, but found it premature to limit the scope of the Mareva injunction until complete asset information was provided.

The plaintiffs, auto dealers, purchased three vehicles from the defendants and subsequently sold them to third parties in the United States.

The defendant bank held prior registered security interests under the Personal Property Security Act against the vehicles.

The plaintiffs sued the bank seeking a declaration of ownership free of liens, alleging fraud by the sellers.

The bank moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim and for judgment on its counterclaim for conversion.

The court granted the bank's motion, finding the plaintiffs had actual or constructive notice of the registered liens and intentionally committed acts inconsistent with the bank's possessory rights.

The plaintiffs' claim was dismissed, and the bank was awarded damages for conversion totaling $132,250.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where the plaintiff, Adam Rowe, successfully opposed the defendant JD Design & Build Inc.'s attempt to challenge an Associate Justice's report.

The plaintiff sought costs on a full indemnity basis, or alternatively, substantial indemnity based on a Rule 49 offer.

The court rejected full indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the defendant, but awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the Rule 49 offer and substantial indemnity thereafter, totaling $14,500.00.

The court emphasized that the defendant's ability to pay was irrelevant given the application of Rule 49.10.

The plaintiff brought an action claiming 100% beneficial ownership of a family property that had been transferred multiple times among family members and ultimately sold to a third-party corporation.

The plaintiff sought to set aside the sale as a fraudulent conveyance.

The court found that the plaintiff and his father were equal 50% beneficial owners of the property.

The court declined to set aside the sale, finding the third-party corporation was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

The court ordered the plaintiff's parents to pay him 50% of the net sale proceeds under a constructive trust.

All counterclaims were dismissed.

The defendant JD Design & Build Inc. brought a motion opposing the confirmation of an associate judge's report, which awarded the plaintiff a construction lien and contract damages, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant alleged the associate judge erred in finding that travel time was included in the contract, that certain work was outside the initial scope, and that the costs award was proportionate.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the associate judge's factual findings and no error in principle in the discretionary costs award.

The plaintiff, an experienced private lender, brought an action against a law clerk and two lawyers for negligence, fraud, and conspiracy arising from defaulted mortgage investments.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were statute-barred and lacked evidentiary support.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the material facts supporting her claims well beyond the two-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to provide expert evidence on the standard of care for the professional negligence claims and offered no evidence to support the allegations of fraud and conspiracy.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision and a reconsideration decision denying her claim for accident benefits for chiropractic treatment.

She argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness and failed to provide sufficient reasons by not explicitly referring to a medical report from her orthopedic surgeon.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that an adjudicator is not required to refer to every piece of evidence in their reasons, and the reasons provided were detailed and demonstrated a firm grasp of the evidentiary record.

The plaintiff moved in writing for default judgment seeking possession of a property and payment of $313,544.95.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the statement of claim failed to plead facts establishing a contractual nexus between the plaintiff and the defendant, or that any money was actually advanced.

Furthermore, the affidavit in support failed to attach the correct contractual documents and provided no foundation for the various fees and penalties claimed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal concerning the discharge of mortgages.

The appellant, Rick Goodman, challenged two findings of the application judge: that a $60,000 promissory note was statute-barred and that certain legal fees could not be added to the mortgage balance.

The court upheld the application judge's findings, confirming that the promissory note's limitation period ran from its maturity date and that the legal fees, despite being incurred pre-mediation, were not properly claimed six-and-a-half years later.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was largely successful in its construction lien claim and successfully defended against the defendants' counterclaim, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought $46,326.42 based on partial indemnity costs up to the date of a reasonable offer to settle, and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court found the defendants' failure to accept the plaintiff's reasonable offers and their unreasonable conduct during litigation justified the costs claimed.

The plaintiff was awarded $44,000 in costs, slightly reduced to reflect partial lack of success on the main claim, along with prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

The plaintiff, a subcontractor providing swing stage labour, brought a construction lien and breach of contract claim against the general contractor and owner for unpaid invoices totaling $36,761.73.

The defendants counterclaimed for deficiency correction costs and alleged overbilling, including disputed travel time.

The court found that the defendants fundamentally breached the oral contract by refusing payment based on groundless deficiency claims and terminating the contract without cause.

The court held that travel time was compensable under the agreement and awarded the plaintiff $35,643.03, dismissing the defendants' counterclaim.