Not specified

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant, seeking general damages of $250,000, compensatory/ongoing support of $1,700 per month, and injunctive relief.

The defendant had filed a Notice of Intent to Defend and was represented by counsel.

The motion was brought without notice to the defendant, one day after the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding that best practice requires service of the motion record on the defendant, that the plaintiff failed to provide the Statement of Claim, and that there were questions about whether a valid cause of action had been pleaded and whether the action constituted an impermissible collateral attack on earlier family court decisions.

This motion concerned the approval of a proposed settlement affecting a minor plaintiff, brought pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court assessed whether the settlement was fair and reasonable, if the legal fees and disbursements were fair and reasonable, and if the requirements of Rule 7.08 had been complied with.

The court found the settlement and the requested fees and disbursements to be reasonable and in the best interests of the minor plaintiff, approving the settlement.

The applicant, charged with firearm and fraud offences, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 21 months and 16 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial courts.

The court attributed 38 days of delay to the defence.

The Crown argued for additional defence delay and a deduction for COVID-19 ripple effects.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments regarding COVID-19 and most alleged defence delay, finding that significant delay was caused by the Crown's late disclosure of Information to Obtains (ITOs) and court staff shortages, which were not exceptional circumstances attributable to the pandemic in this context.

Consequently, the court found a breach of the applicant's s. 11(b) rights and stayed the charges.

The applicant, a person under disability, sought court approval for a full and final settlement of his statutory accident benefits claim, pursuant to Rule 7.08(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court approved the proposed settlement of $450,000, which included a structured component, finding it to be in the best interests of the applicant.

The decision also provided important clarification on the practice of pre-funding structured settlements in escrow, affirming that this process is appropriate and necessary to secure precise payment schedules and does not usurp the court's jurisdiction, as funds remain subject to withdrawal or amendment until final approval.

The Receiver, KPMG Inc., sought court approval for an asset purchase agreement for a medical office building, authorization for distributions to secured creditors, approval of its activities, and its discharge.

The motion also included requests to seal and unseal confidential documents.

All relief sought was unopposed.

The court applied the Soundair Principles to approve the sale, authorized payment of real estate commissions, and approved the proposed distribution to the applicants, noting that the net sale proceeds were insufficient to satisfy secured obligations.

The court also addressed the issue of HST arrears and deemed trust claims, concluding no further action was needed due to the proposed bankruptcy and the "prescribed security interest" exception.

The Receiver's activities were approved, and a limited release was granted upon filing of a discharge certificate.

This decision addresses six consolidated appeals, all linked by the involvement of ASMIN Grand Chief Wabiska Mukwa, who purported to represent various appellants claiming membership in the Anishinabek Solutrean Métis Indigenous Nation.

The appeals sought to vacate court jurisdiction based on ASMIN laws and customs and compel Crown consultations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding them frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, characterized by unintelligible arguments and delay tactics.

The court further barred Mukwa from making future filings or communications in the Court of Appeal unless he is a direct party to an appeal and obtains prior leave.

This decision concerns costs arising from a motion where the plaintiffs sought a certificate of pending litigation on an investment property.

The motion was dismissed, but the court ordered 22.5% of the net sale proceeds to be paid into court to secure the plaintiffs' interest.

In the costs submissions, it was revealed that the property had been sold ten days before the motion hearing, a fact not disclosed to the court or the plaintiffs.

The court found this non-disclosure by some defendants to be "gamesmanship" and a deception that undermined the integrity of the legal process.

Despite the defendant Yousef's Rule 49 offer to settle, the court ruled that the deception disentitled any defendant from receiving costs directly from the plaintiffs.

Instead, both the plaintiffs' costs ($10,236.97) and the defendant Yousef's costs ($14,511.78) were ordered to be paid from the net proceeds of the property sale held in court, and any shortfall to be paid jointly and severally by the beneficial owners involved in the deception.

The defendants requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff sued the government for alleged Charter breaches arising from his treatment after immigrating as a refugee in 1957.

A previous action based on the same facts was dismissed in 2019 as statute-barred.

The court found the current action appeared duplicative and directed the registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiff to explain why the lawsuit should not be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.

The action was stayed pending the outcome of the written hearing.

This motion sought judicial approval of a settlement for a minor plaintiff who suffered injuries at a marina.

While the $85,000 settlement was deemed reasonable given the plaintiff's full recovery, the court found the proposed 35% contingency fee of the plaintiff's counsel to be excessive and unenforceable.

The court reduced the legal fees to 20% of the net recovery, increasing the amount paid to the minor plaintiff.

This endorsement addresses a solicitor's unacceptable conduct in circumventing court approval for a minor's settlement.

The solicitor sought to dismiss a minor's claim without payment after a previous judge refused approval due to deficiencies and explicitly stated that approval was required even after the minor attained majority.

The solicitor ignored the court's order and obtained a consent dismissal, disbursing funds without judicial oversight.

The court found this a flagrant breach of Rule 7, disrespectful to the court process, and contrary to established case law requiring court approval for settlements entered into while a party is a minor, regardless of subsequent attainment of majority.

The respondent father moved for an order transferring a family law matter from the Ontario Court of Justice to the Superior Court of Justice and for leave to bring an urgent motion regarding child access and division of proceeds from the sale of the former shared home.

The applicant mother sought to restrict in-person visits due to the child's medical vulnerability during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion as non-urgent and beyond jurisdiction.

The court found that the applicant's concerns regarding the child's medical condition were medically justified and that alternative arrangements through phone and video visits should be arranged pending the resolution of the pandemic.

Following the dismissal of the self-represented plaintiff's action as frivolous and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01, the successful defendants sought full indemnity costs of $10,981.79.

The court noted that Rule 2.1.01 is a summary procedure designed to minimize expense.

Finding the defendants' claimed hours excessive for a summary process where no statement of defence was filed, the court awarded a modest, proportional costs amount of $2,088.40.

The plaintiff, Silvy Joyce D'Souza, initiated a lengthy and complex action against her former landlords, their legal representatives, and other tenants, alleging various causes of action stemming from a landlord and tenant dispute.

The defendants requested a referral under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim sought to relitigate issues already decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board and dismissed on appeal by the Divisional Court, constituting a collateral attack on prior decisions.

The action was dismissed under Rule 2.1.01.

This decision addresses costs following an unspecified proceeding.

The court exercised its discretion to order costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding the defendant Focal Elements' submissions persuasive and the requested amount reasonable.

Costs were awarded to Focal Elements, payable by the plaintiff, 9448616 Canada Ltd., in the amount of $6,836.47, inclusive of legal fees, HST, and disbursements, payable within 30 days.

The applicant sought an order declaring entitlement to a $20,000 deposit held in trust by Royal LePage Your Community Realty following a failed real estate transaction.

The purchasers defaulted on the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The court applied established principles regarding deposit forfeiture in real estate transactions, finding that the vendor is entitled to the deposit without proving actual damages when the purchaser defaults.

The vendor's damages exceeded the deposit amount.

The court ordered the deposit to be paid to the vendor.

The plaintiff filed a Notice of Action seeking specific performance for an alleged breach of contract against the Government of Ontario.

The Attorney General of Canada, a defendant, requested a review under Rule 2.1.01(6) to dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found the Notice of Action difficult to understand and potentially frivolous but deferred a decision on dismissal, requiring a review of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, if filed, before proceeding with a Form 2.1A notice.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), as litigation guardian for the plaintiff, Ki Ho Kim, brought a motion for court approval of a $25,000 settlement in a slip and fall action.

Kim opposed the settlement and sought to set aside a prior order appointing the PGT as his litigation guardian, arguing he was no longer under disability.

The court reviewed multiple capacity assessments, all confirming Kim's mental incapacity.

The court dismissed Kim's motion, affirming his status as a party under disability and the PGT's authority.

The court then approved the proposed settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in Kim's best interests, and ordered the distribution of funds.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), as litigation guardian for the plaintiff, Ki Ho Kim, sought court approval for a $10,000 settlement.

Kim opposed the settlement, arguing he was no longer a party under disability and did not require a litigation guardian.

The court reviewed multiple capacity assessments, all of which concluded Kim was mentally incapable.

The court dismissed Kim's motion to set aside the prior order appointing the PGT, citing lack of standing and *res judicata*.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the plaintiff's best interests, and ordered previous cost orders against the plaintiff to be set aside.

This motion, initiated by a request from the defendant's lawyers and referred by the Registrar under Rule 2.1.01(7), concerned the dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

The action had been previously stayed pending notice to the plaintiff regarding a potential dismissal under Rule 2.1.

Despite responding, the plaintiff failed to address the claim's similarity to prior dismissed actions.

The court found the claim frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, dismissing it under Rule 2.1 and awarding costs to the defendant.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The respondents brought a request under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to dismiss the application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, citing numerous prior cases involving the applicant.

The court dismissed the respondents' Rule 2.1.01 request, holding that determining whether the applicant was relitigating would require an extensive review of many prior decisions, which meant the pleadings were not *on their face* frivolous, vexatious, or abusive.

The interim stay on the application was vacated, and the applicant was awarded costs.