Peter A. Daley

The respondents brought a motion to stay or dismiss the application as an abuse of process, alleging the applicant failed to immediately disclose a settlement agreement with a co-respondent, failed to disclose surveillance evidence, and improperly commenced the proceeding as an application.

The court found that the applicant had made immediate and proper disclosure of the settlement agreement to both the non-settling parties and the court, and that the handling of surveillance evidence did not constitute an abuse of process.

The motion to stay was dismissed, but the court ordered the application converted into an action.

The plaintiff franchisee brought a motion for relief from forfeiture and an interlocutory injunction to reinstate a terminated franchise agreement and commercial sublease for a Williams Fresh Café location.

The franchisor had terminated the agreement after the plaintiff failed health audits, accrued significant debts, and closed the store.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, requiring a strong prima facie case because the plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction to enforce a month-to-month agreement with no renewal right.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action arising from a $200,000 real estate investment.

The plaintiffs alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment regarding the calculation of profits and holdbacks from the sale of two properties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the enforceability of the settlement releases, alleged misrepresentations of costs, and whether the claims were statute-barred.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $9,750,000 settlement in a medical malpractice action arising from severe birth injuries sustained by the minor plaintiff.

The court reviewed the proposed distribution, including damages, costs, and legal fees calculated under a Contingent Fee Agreement.

Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minor plaintiff, and the reduced contingency fee of 27.5% appropriate, the court approved the settlement and the related guardianship application.

During a civil trial, the plaintiffs sought to cross-examine a defence witness on unproven fraud charges to impeach his credibility, after the witness denied having a criminal record in chief.

The court denied the request, holding that under the bad character exclusionary rule, unproven allegations against a non-party witness have high prejudicial effect and extremely low probative value.

The plaintiffs brought a motion during trial under Rule 53.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to introduce previously undisclosed documents to impeach a defence witness.

The trial had been adjourned for several months due to illness, meaning the defendants had the documents since January 2022 and cross-examination had not yet commenced.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the explanation for late disclosure was weak, the lengthy adjournment cured any prejudice or ambush, and the documents could be used solely for impeachment purposes.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking leave to obtain a passport for the parties' young child and to travel to India for six to eight weeks.

The respondent father opposed the motion, citing concerns that the mother would not return to Canada.

The court dismissed the travel and passport requests, noting the mother's tenuous connection to Canada, the lack of a specific travel plan, and the fact that India is not a signatory to the Hague Convention.

The court also severed the divorce from corollary relief and adjourned the issue of financial disclosure.

The court monitor brought a motion for advice and directions due to the defendants' failure to comply with a prior court order requiring them to provide financial disclosure and a $500,000 retainer.

The defendants opposed the motion but failed to file any evidentiary record.

The court granted the Monitor's motion, ordering the defendants to comply with the prior order, provide the required financial records, and authorizing the release of the retainer funds from a specific bank account.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants' costs were excessive and that their conduct warranted a denial of costs.

The court found that while the plaintiff's motion was ill-conceived, its conduct was not reprehensible enough to justify elevated costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs in the amount of $50,995.12.

The defendants, having successfully obtained an order discharging a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), sought substantial indemnity costs of $31,122.07.

The plaintiffs argued for a much lower award.

The court found that the plaintiffs had breached their obligation for full and fair disclosure of material facts on their initial ex parte motion to register the CPL.

Citing this material non-disclosure as an exceptional circumstance, the court awarded the defendants substantial indemnity costs as requested, payable jointly and severally by the plaintiffs.

This decision is a costs endorsement following the plaintiffs' successful motion for leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs from the defendants Shayna Dallas and 2697909 Ontario Inc., who opposed the CPL motion.

The court found the plaintiffs presumptively entitled to costs as the successful parties on a distinct procedural step.

Applying Rule 49.10, the court determined that the defendants' failure to accept a reasonable offer to settle, which included a compromise regarding the CPL's duration, warranted substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants' uncooperative conduct during litigation also contributed to the decision.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $65,000 in substantial indemnity costs, to be paid jointly and severally by the opposing defendants.

The applicants, Dr. David Perkins and Dr. Philip Boll, sought court approval of a partial settlement agreement (Pierringer agreement) with Dr. Arturo Wadgymar and Dr. Donald Kim.

The non-settling parties, Physicians’ Dialysis Centre Inc., Dr. George Wu, and Dr. Gordon K. T. Wong, neither consented to nor opposed the motion.

The court, having served as case management judge and reviewed the material, found that the agreement did not cause unfairness or prejudice to the non-settling parties and was in the interests of justice.

The court approved the agreement, confirming it does not alter the adversarial position of the parties or impair the applicants' ability to pursue claims against the non-settling parties.

In a long-running dispute over the ownership and management of medical schools, the respondents sought leave from the case management judge to bring a motion to set aside or vary a prior court order under Rule 59.06(2).

The respondents relied on a foreign court order as fresh evidence.

The court denied leave, finding that the foreign order did not constitute fresh evidence that would have changed the result, the respondents had delayed significantly in raising it, and the proposed motion was an abuse of process attempting to relitigate fully adjudicated issues.

The plaintiff, Lightbox Enterprises Ltd., moved for interlocutory injunctive orders against the defendant, 2708227 Ontario Inc., concerning their business relationship involving retail cannabis stores.

Lightbox alleged breach of license and service agreements and misuse of confidential information and trademarks ("Dutch Love""Hobo Cannabis"). 2708227 Ontario Inc. counter-claimed, asserting the relationship was a franchise governed by the Arthur Wishart Act and that Lightbox failed to provide disclosure, entitling 2708227 Ontario Inc. to rescind the agreements.

The court dismissed Lightbox's motion for injunctive relief, finding no contractual basis for the primary relief sought, insufficient evidence to establish a strong prima facie case for breach of confidence, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored the defendant.

The defendants moved to set aside a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) registered against a property, alleging the plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure on their ex parte motion and did not satisfy the test for CPL registration.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to disclose material facts, including a share pledge and purchase agreement, and that they lacked a direct interest in the property.

The court granted the defendants' motion, discharging the CPL, emphasizing the duty of full disclosure on ex parte motions and the absence of a triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' interest in the land.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property, alleging an unconscionable mortgage transaction and fraud.

The defendants Shayna Dallas and 2697909 Ontario Inc. opposed, claiming to be bona fide purchasers without notice.

The court applied the two-part test for CPLs, finding a triable claim to an interest in land and that the balance of factors favored granting the CPL, particularly due to the defendants' lack of credible evidence and questionable conduct regarding the property's transfer and value.

This decision concerns the costs of a motion brought by the Regional Municipality of Halton following a previous decision regarding "Wagg Orders" and the scope of disclosure.

The plaintiff sought clarification on sharing materials for a wrongful dismissal action.

The court found that the defendants' "purported consent" to the plaintiff's motion was not genuine and forced the plaintiff to proceed.

Although the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $9,894.76, finding the defendants' conduct, while not egregious enough for substantial indemnity, was ill-advised and necessitated the motion.

The court applied Rule 57 factors in determining the appropriate costs.

This decision addresses the quantum of costs payable to the plaintiffs following the settlement of a motor vehicle accident action.

The court considered the principles of fair and reasonable costs under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing proportionality and the defendants' failure to engage in mandatory mediation under the Insurance Act.

Despite the plaintiffs abandoning claims for substantial or augmented costs, the court found the partial indemnity costs sought by the plaintiffs to be fair, reasonable, and proportionate, considering the complexity and length of the litigation, and the defendants' conduct in prolonging the process.

The Regional Municipality of Halton brought a motion seeking to amend two prior "Wagg Orders" to explicitly include a related wrongful dismissal action (the "Ohashi Wrongful Dismissal Action") within their scope for the purpose of document disclosure.

The defendants, the Ohashis, opposed the motion, arguing it was unnecessary and that declaratory relief was inappropriate.

The court, applying Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found that the omission of the wrongful dismissal action from the previous order was an oversight.

Consequently, the court granted the amendment, allowing Halton to produce the documents obtained under the Wagg Orders in the Ohashi Wrongful Dismissal Action, emphasizing that questions of relevance and admissibility would be determined by the trial judge.

The plaintiff successfully moved for the production of financial records related to the defendant from third-party financial institutions.

The plaintiff sought costs of the motion.

The defendant opposed the quantum but failed to file a costs outline as ordered.

The court awarded the plaintiff its costs on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive sum of $28,125.92, noting the defendant's conduct in expanding the issues and the failure to file a costs outline.