Perell

Canada brought a Request for Direction seeking approval of its proposal to archive copies of certain Non-Claim Records from the Independent Assessment Process with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation.

The National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation and the Assembly of First Nations responded with some objections, particularly regarding the redaction of personal information.

The court approved Canada's proposal, finding it consistent with the legal framework governing government document retention, the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, and previous court orders, while deferring the issue of Static Reports to a future Request for Direction.

Following a decision granting Brewers Retail's motion for security for costs and Chill Media's motion to late file expert reports, the court determined the costs of the motions.

Brewers Retail sought costs of $18,864.93, while Chill Media argued for divided success and partial indemnity costs of $6,339.

The court found Brewers Retail to be the successful party, as Chill Media was seeking an indulgence to vary a previous order.

The court awarded Brewers Retail its requested costs of $18,864.93, payable in any event of the cause but not forthwith, to avoid frustrating the plaintiff's ability to prosecute its claim.

The plaintiff's counsel brought a motion to discontinue the proposed class action against Canada Goose Holdings Inc. and to be removed as counsel of record.

The representative plaintiff had ceased providing instructions and could not be contacted, and efforts to find a replacement representative plaintiff were unsuccessful.

The court granted the motion, finding it appropriate to discontinue the action and remove counsel, with the discontinuance taking effect on July 1, 2021, after adequate notice to class members.

Following an application regarding the continuation of a legal non-conforming use, the applicant sought costs of $60,186.30 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent argued for each party to bear their own costs due to divided success, or alternatively $20,000.

The court found there was genuinely divided success as the applicant was successful on the declaration but overreached on the injunction, which the respondent successfully resisted.

Applying Rule 57.01, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $38,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff unit owner brought a motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction against the defendant condominium corporation, seeking orders for expert opinions, alternative accommodation, and repairs to her unit following water damage and mould contamination originating from the common elements.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the high threshold of a strong prima facie case or demonstrate irreparable harm, particularly given the condominium corporation's undertaking to pay $100 per day for alternative accommodation and to repair the unit.

In a fraud action, the defendant volunteered to have the proceeds of the sale of her home held in trust pending trial, resulting in a consent order.

The defendant subsequently brought a motion to use a portion of the frozen funds to pay for her living and legal expenses.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to vary the consent order.

The court held that the consent order was equivalent to a Mareva injunction and that it had the jurisdiction to permit the defendant to use the frozen assets for reasonable expenses.

The motion was granted, allowing the defendant to use up to $175,000 from the proceeds.

The parties settled an application regarding property standards and snow falling from the respondent's roof, but could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $24,026, arguing he was practically successful.

The court found that because there was no Rule 49 offer to settle specifying costs, and the outcome on the merits remained unknown, no order as to costs was appropriate.

A previous $500 costs award for an adjournment remained payable.

The applicant tenant, a dentist, sought to assign his commercial lease to two younger dentists purchasing his practice.

The respondent landlord refused to consent, initially requesting a demolition clause and later demanding extensive financial information.

The tenant brought an application under the Commercial Tenancies Act, arguing the refusal was unreasonable.

The court found that neither party acted in good faith, as the landlord's requests were overreaching but the tenant failed to provide basic financial information.

The application was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the tenant to re-open it if the landlord continued to refuse consent after receiving reasonable financial disclosure.

The plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action in 2008 alleging that a prescription medication manufactured by the defendant caused cardiovascular harm.

After twelve years with no progress toward certification, the defendant moved to dismiss for delay.

The plaintiffs decided not to proceed and brought a consent motion to discontinue the action without costs.

The court approved the discontinuance under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding the action had no potential to be certified and the proposed notice to putative class members was appropriate.

In a proposed class action regarding a data breach, the plaintiffs brought a motion for an injunction to enjoin or supervise communications from the defendants to putative class members.

The defendants intended to send a notice to 51,000 affected individuals offering free credit monitoring.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to intervene as the proposed notice did not affect the integrity of the class proceedings or compromise the putative class members' rights.

The plaintiff home builder brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchasers who failed to close a real estate transaction due to an inability to obtain financing in a declining market.

The plaintiff resold the property at a loss and sued for the difference in sale prices and carrying costs.

The defendants argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages by refusing to take back a mortgage.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no failure to mitigate, as a vendor is not obliged to accept revised terms from a defaulting purchaser.

Damages were awarded for the loss in value and carrying costs, excluding interest on a loan not proven to be connected to the property.

This was a costs decision following the plaintiff's unsuccessful motion to certify a proposed class proceeding alleging breach of fiduciary duty, knowing assistance, knowing receipt, breach of contract, and oppression.

The court reviewed the general costs principles under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the specific principles governing class proceedings costs, emphasizing fairness, reasonableness, and access to justice.

Although the successful defendants sought substantial indemnity costs based on serious unproven allegations and the continued pursuit of non-certifiable claims, the court held the action was not frivolous or vexatious and declined punitive costs.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded in the amounts claimed by the successful defendants.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach brought motions to compel answers to questions refused on cross-examinations of two affiants and an omnibus motion to strike out various affidavits, factum paragraphs, and a sealing motion.

The court dismissed the refusals motions, finding the questions asked were beyond the narrow scope of the underlying motions (an injunction motion and a sealing motion) and were properly refused.

The court also dismissed the omnibus motion, finding no reason to strike the evidence or alter the timetable for the upcoming jurisdiction and certification motions.

The insurer brought an application to regularize a dysfunctional insurance appraisal process following a fire at a condominium construction project.

The insured brought a cross-application to terminate the appraisal process.

The court found that the appraisal process had become a 'procedural shipwreck' due to the joint and several fault of the umpire, the appraisers, and the lawyers for both parties.

The court dismissed the insurer's application and granted the insured's cross-application, permanently terminating the appraisal process and leaving the valuation of the loss to be determined in the concurrent court action.

The plaintiff First Nation sued the City of Winnipeg for compensation for injurious affection caused by Winnipeg's water-taking from Shoal Lake, and sued the Province of Ontario for breach of fiduciary duty for failing to protect the plaintiff's interests and ensure compensation.

Ontario moved to strike the breach of fiduciary duty claims under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff's claims based on sui generis and ad hoc fiduciary duties were doomed to fail, given the historical context, the 1913 Order in Council, and the Crown's potential discretionary control over the plaintiff's cognizable Aboriginal interests.

The plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action against the manufacturer of a handgun used in a mass shooting, alleging negligent design, public nuisance, and strict liability for failing to incorporate authorized user ('smart gun') technology.

The defendant moved to strike the statement of claim under Rule 21 for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the negligence claim, finding it fell within the established duty of care categories for goods dangerous per se and products liability.

However, the court struck the claims for public nuisance and strict liability, concluding they were legally untenable in the context of product liability.

The putative class counsel sought court approval to dismiss the proposed class action against the manufacturers of Accutane.

The representative plaintiff had previously withdrawn, and scientific consensus emerged that there was no causal link between Accutane and Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

The court approved the dismissal without costs, noting the lack of a representative plaintiff and negligible chances of success.

The defendant brought a successful motion to stay a 2019 action as an abuse of process and to consolidate it with a 2017 action.

The defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, citing a Rule 49 offer, the plaintiff's lack of good faith, and uncooperative conduct.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding it appropriate to clear the costs slate and apply normal principles.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $70,000.

The respondent, Sherbourne Residential, sought costs of $143,145.58 following the dismissal of the applicants' application regarding a $2 million parkland holdback.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle, but the court found the offer was made less than seven days before the hearing, precluding substantial indemnity under Rule 49.03.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and considering the fair expectations of the unsuccessful party, the court fixed costs at $75,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

In a proposed class action regarding a massive data breach, the plaintiffs brought a motion for substitutional service on a defendant residing in the United States whose exact whereabouts were unknown.

The court held that because the defendant's address was unknown, the Hague Convention did not apply, and service could be effected under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion, allowing substitutional service by emailing the documents to the defendant's U.S. criminal defence attorney.