Peter Istvan Waldmann

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $17,918.66 for unsold jewelry under a consignment agreement.

The appellant, who was self-represented at trial, argued the trial was unfair due to the handling of her adjournment request and the trial judge's failure to assist her with procedural steps.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge failed to provide necessary assistance to the self-represented litigant regarding the adjournment and the tendering of documentary evidence.

The court also found the trial judge erred in applying an arbitrary 20% discount to the damages calculation.

A new trial was ordered.

The plaintiffs commenced an action claiming over $1 million in unpaid loans and an unrecorded security interest in several properties.

They obtained ex parte certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against five properties that had been sold to the moving defendants.

The moving defendants, claiming to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice, brought a motion to discharge the CPLs.

The court found that while the plaintiffs had a triable claim, the balance of convenience and equities favoured discharging the CPLs, as damages would be a satisfactory remedy and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the moving defendants were knowingly involved in a scheme to defeat their claims.

The motion was granted and the CPLs were discharged.

The court heard three service and pleadings-related motions in a complex fraud action.

The defendant Mark Gross successfully moved to set aside a prior ex parte order validating service on him, arguing the claims against him were intertwined with insolvent corporate defendants and should be addressed in commercial list insolvency proceedings.

Three numbered company defendants successfully moved to set aside their noting in default, as they had not been given notice of the default proceedings while a motion to validate service on them was pending.

The plaintiffs' motion to validate service was granted for the numbered companies and one individual defendant who had actual notice, but dismissed regarding other defendants due to insufficient evidence of notice or efforts to serve.

The plaintiff successfully defended summary judgment motions brought by multiple defendants across several actions.

While costs were resolved with most defendants, the plaintiff sought costs against the defendants Helden and 131 Ontario for their involvement in the dismissed motions in the s. 38 BIA Action and the Copyright Action.

The court declined to award costs for the Copyright Action due to the defendants' limited involvement.

For the s. 38 BIA Action, the court found the defendants were passive participants who 'tagged along' with the primary moving parties.

The court apportioned 25% of the plaintiff's costs for that motion to these defendants, fixing the amount at $9,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel production of documents, answers to refused questions, and re-attendance for further examinations of several defendants and a non-party witness following cross-examinations on an affidavit and examinations under Rule 39.03.

The examinations were conducted in the context of a pending motion by the defendant Purchaser Corporations to discharge certificates of pending litigation.

The court granted partial relief, ordering the production of share purchase agreements and answers to specific questions regarding corporate control and share transfers, finding them relevant to the bona fides of the property transactions.

The court dismissed the requests for voluminous due diligence documents as overbroad and declined to order re-attendance for further examinations.

A case conference was held to address the scheduling of several outstanding motions after the plaintiffs dismissed their counsel.

The court rescheduled the motions to the week of November 7, 2022, to be heard virtually.

The hearing of the motions was marked peremptory against the plaintiffs and their corporate entities, giving them time to retain new counsel without further delaying the proceedings.

The plaintiff commenced four separate actions arising out of the bankruptcy and subsequent death of a lawyer.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the actions, primarily arguing they were barred by the applicable limitation periods.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the Bankruptcy Trustee Action and the Client Assigned Claims Action (with one minor exception), finding they were commenced after the expiry of the two-year limitation period and there was no genuine issue for trial regarding discoverability.

However, the court denied summary judgment for the s. 38 BIA Action and the Copyright Action, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding when the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the injuries and whether the copyrighted materials were used during the relevant period.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 22, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no order as to costs.

A case conference was held to address multiple related actions.

On consent, the claims against Shahzad Siddiqui and Borden Ladner Gervais LLP were dismissed with prejudice and without costs.

The court directed counsel to confer regarding the potential release of individual defendants and established a timetable for scheduling upcoming dispositive motions.

The respondent law firm brought a motion to strike a supplementary motion record and subsequent affidavits delivered by the applicants in an application to assess the firm's accounts.

The applicants delivered the 1,229-page supplementary record over six years after the application was commenced, without leave, and after the applicants had already been cross-examined on their original affidavits.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the late delivery constituted improper case-splitting and an attempt to 'shore up' evidence post-cross-examination.

The court also denied the applicants' request to cross-examine a witness, finding they had forfeited the right by failing to exercise reasonable diligence.

A case conference was held to manage multiple related proceedings.

Counsel for the plaintiffs indicated a recommendation for the plaintiffs to agree to dismissals without costs in most cases, except potentially the claim against Grant Thornton LLP Canada, which requires leave to proceed.

The court directed that a new class action issued by one of the plaintiffs be case managed together with the existing matters.

Counsel were directed to advise on dismissals or agree on a timetable for dispositive motions by a specified date.

This endorsement concerns the costs of a successful motion brought by Skyservice Business Aviation Inc. to strike allegations of vicarious liability for sexual harassment from the plaintiff's statement of claim.

Skyservice sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff argued for partial indemnity.

The court found no conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs, affirming that such an elevated scale is reserved for reprehensible conduct.

The court awarded Skyservice costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $14,562.88, finding the quantum reasonable based on the time spent and rates, and noting its similarity to the plaintiff's own partial indemnity costs outline.

The defendants in a motor vehicle accident claim sought an adjournment of the trial to bring a motion to consolidate the action with the plaintiff's separate defamation lawsuit against a newspaper.

The defendants argued the plaintiff was claiming psychological damages in both actions.

The court dismissed the request for an adjournment, finding the two pieces of litigation to be separate and distinct, and noting the defendants could cross-examine the plaintiff and experts on the overlapping issues without consolidating the trials.

A police services board and a detective appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for false arrest, negligent investigation, and malicious prosecution, with significant damages awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff cross-appealed the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on lack of reasonable and probable grounds and malice, and the cross-appeal, affirming the costs award.

The defendant Skyservice Business Aviation Inc. brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike allegations of vicarious liability for sexual harassment from the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, arguing that it does not disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court found that sexual harassment is not an independent tort in Ontario and that section 46.3 of the Human Rights Code expressly excludes vicarious liability for sexual harassment against an employer.

The motion to strike was granted, with leave to amend denied for this specific tort, but allowing for amendments related to other Code infringements under section 46.1.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Media Development Corporation (OMDC) denying a film tax credit on the basis that its production, Reflections, was not a 'documentary'.

The applicant argued the OMDC's interpretation was unreasonable and fettered by anti-evangelical Christian bias.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard from Vavilov and found the OMDC's interpretation of 'documentary' and its application to the production were reasonable.

The court also dismissed the allegations of bias and procedural unfairness.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant client sought to schedule a hearing before a judge to assess accounts rendered by his former lawyer.

The contingency fee agreement had previously been declared unenforceable by another judge, who ordered a reference for assessment.

The court held that because the contingency fee agreement was unenforceable, the assessment must proceed in the normal manner before an assessment officer, not a judge.

The application to schedule a hearing before a judge was dismissed.

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 directions following a successful appeal of an arbitration, seeking to proceed expeditiously after losing confidence in the arbitrator.

All parties agreed to adjourn the motion pending an evaluation from Tarion regarding the return of deposits.

The court agreed it was in the interests of justice to adjourn the matter to August 5, 2021.

The defendant appealed a Master's decision setting aside a Registrar's order that dismissed the plaintiff's defamation action for delay.

The defendant argued the Master erred by not upholding the dismissal after finding the plaintiff deliberately delayed the action, and by reversing the burden of proof regarding prejudice.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Master applied the correct contextual approach to the Reid factors and reasonably concluded that the interests of justice favoured deciding the case on its merits, given the lack of significant prejudice to the defendant.