Peter A. Daley

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

The plaintiff sought costs of the motion on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued that costs should be left to the trial judge and contested the quantum, but failed to provide a costs outline.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $22,892.14 on a partial indemnity basis, noting the defendants' conduct in expanding the issues and their failure to file a costs outline.

The applicant, an Indigenous child welfare agency, sought judicial review of a Minister's decision amending the designations of child welfare agencies in the Thunder Bay area.

The decision expanded the jurisdiction of another Indigenous agency to provide services to its affiliated families residing in Thunder Bay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's decision was a policy decision that met the requirements of procedural fairness and was reasonable under the Vavilov framework.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion under Rule 30.10 for the production of financial records from non-party financial institutions relating to the defendant Snowball.

The action involves an alleged $23 million fraud scheme manipulating the plaintiff's procurement processes.

Snowball, a former employee, opposed the motion, arguing the records were not relevant, production was not necessary before discovery, and it would violate her privacy rights.

The court found the records were highly relevant to tracing the defrauded funds and assessing liability, and that pre-discovery production was necessary for the forensic accountants to complete their investigation.

The court also rejected the privacy arguments, finding no constitutional or statutory protection that would override the open court principle and the need for disclosure.

The motion was granted.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion under Rule 30.10 for the production of financial records held by third-party financial institutions relating to the defendants, alleging a complex procurement fraud scheme.

The responding defendants opposed the production of personal banking records but consented to the production of certain corporate records.

The court dismissed the contested portions of the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the requested documents were relevant to a material issue or that it would be unfair to proceed to discovery without them, applying the Ballard factors.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion under Rule 30.10 for the production of financial records held by non-party financial institutions relating to the defendants.

The action arose from an alleged $2.5 million fraud involving the manipulation of the municipality's procurement processes by a former employee and various vendors.

The former employee had previously been convicted of criminal fraud related to the same conduct.

The court granted the motion, finding that the records were highly relevant to tracing the misappropriated funds and quantifying the losses, and that it would be unfair to require the plaintiff to proceed to discovery without them.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that their privacy interests precluded production.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his dental malpractice claim.

During a tooth extraction, the appellant exhibited signs of distress, prompting the respondent dentist to administer nitroglycerin under the belief the appellant was having a heart attack.

The appellant later suffered a bradycardic event at the hospital and claimed psychological injuries.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the respondent met the standard of care in an emergency situation and that there was no factual causation between the administration of nitroglycerin and the subsequent hospital event.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision ordering it to pay for disputed chiropractic treatment plans once incurred.

The insurer argued the LAT lacked jurisdiction to order payment for expenses not yet incurred prior to the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT has broad remedial powers to determine entitlement to benefits, and requiring claimants to self-fund disputed treatments before accessing the LAT would defeat the consumer protection purpose of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision declining to enforce a settlement agreement.

The appellant had accepted a Rule 49 offer to settle for $25,000, but the respondents resiled, arguing changed circumstances.

The motion judge found the offer was validly accepted but declined to enforce it, inferring that the respondents' counsel made a mistake by failing to withdraw the offer.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by basing his decision on an argument not advanced by the parties and by inferring a mistake without evidence.

The settlement agreement was declared valid and enforceable.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend his statement of claim to restore his former family law lawyer as a defendant in an action for professional negligence.

The action against the lawyer had previously been dismissed on consent without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to bring a motion to deliver a fresh as amended statement of claim.

The plaintiff brought the motion five years later.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had discovered his claim prior to commencing the original action in 2014, the two-year limitation period had expired, and the consent order did not constitute an agreement to toll or waive the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, a construction company and its principal, for breach of a home renovation contract.

The defendants were noted in default after failing to properly file a notice of intent to defend.

The court found that the defendants breached the contract, provided limited labour and materials, and misappropriated funds, resulting in unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff was awarded $78,636.97 in damages for overpayments and remedial costs, plus partial indemnity costs.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for delay, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs.

The self-represented plaintiff argued he was not liable for costs because he had accepted the defendants' offer to settle, which proposed a dismissal without costs.

The court found that the plaintiff attempted to accept the offer only after his request for an adjournment was denied at the motion hearing.

Applying Rule 49, the court held that the hearing had already commenced when the defendants' counsel first addressed the court, rendering the plaintiff's acceptance untimely.

The court awarded the defendants their requested costs of $15,881.04.

The applicant father brought a motion for the immediate sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent mother opposed the sale, arguing she and the children should remain in the home until the youngest child reached 21.

The court found no evidence that the applicant's request was malicious, vexatious, or oppressive, nor that the sale would adversely affect the children.

The motion was granted, with the home ordered to be listed for sale and a portion of the net proceeds released to each party upon closing.

The plaintiff lessor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant lessees for arrears of rent owing under two equipment leases for a truck and a trailer.

The defendants defaulted on payments and argued that mechanical issues with the truck frustrated the lease and that the plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the lease terms explicitly placed the burden of repairs on the lessees and the plaintiff had no duty to mitigate a claim for a fixed debt.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion for an interim preservation order under Rule 45.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to ensure that documents and electronic devices seized by the police during a criminal investigation (Wagg items) were preserved pending the determination of the plaintiff's Wagg motion.

The plaintiff adduced uncontradicted evidence that the items were relevant to its civil fraud actions and that there was a real risk of spoliation if the items were returned to the defendants.

The court applied the factors from BMW Canada Inc. v. Autoport Limited and granted the interim preservation order to maintain the status quo and protect trial fairness.

Following a successful motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that while the self-represented plaintiff made unfounded allegations, his conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible or scandalous behaviour required for an elevated costs award.

The court awarded the defendants their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's professional negligence action for delay under Rule 24.01.

The action was commenced in 2012 and had previously been administratively dismissed and reinstated with a strict timetable.

The self-represented plaintiff failed to comply with the timetable, failed to file responding materials, and repeatedly sought adjournments without adequate medical evidence.

The court found the plaintiff's delay to be intentional, contumelious, and inexcusable, causing significant prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed for delay and as an abuse of process.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment arising from a failed real estate transaction, and the plaintiffs responded with a cross-motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance or damages.

The defendants also initiated a third-party claim against the real estate agents and their daughter, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, duress, and forgery.

The court dismissed both summary judgment motions, finding that the multiple intertwined issues, conflicting evidence, and credibility concerns required a full trial.

The motion judge remained seized of the matter for trial management.

The defendants moved to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11.

The claim arose from the College's investigation and disposition of the plaintiff's complaint against a physician.

The court found the statement of claim was devoid of material facts and failed to articulate any recognized cause of action.

Furthermore, section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act rendered the allegations incapable of proof, and section 38 provided statutory immunity to the College.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

The defendants moved to adjourn a lengthy personal injury trial arising from a 2014 motor vehicle accident, citing late service of expert reports and outstanding productions by the plaintiffs.

The court considered the principles for adjournment, including the objective of a just determination on merits and potential prejudice.

While some late reports for one plaintiff (Khadim) were not sufficient for adjournment, a recently served psycho-vocational report for the other plaintiff (Khan) indicating complete unemployability was deemed significant.

The court found that the defendants would be prejudiced if they could not adequately respond to this new evidence.

Despite the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trial scheduling, the motion to adjourn was granted to ensure a fair trial on the merits, vacating the fixed trial date.

The respondent was successful on an appeal from the Small Claims Court and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant disputed the time spent by the respondent's counsel but failed to provide its own bill of costs for comparison.

The court held that absent a bill of costs from the losing party, an attack on the successful party's fees is merely an 'attack in the air'.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $9,813.26, finding the amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate to Small Claims Court litigation.