Peter R. Jervis

The applicant sought a ruling on the interpretation of a commercial lease concerning a solar energy project.

Specifically, the applicant requested declarations that the lease permitted the installation of inverters in the building's electrical room (not just on the roof) and allowed connection to the local utility system via a transformer located on a neighbouring property also owned by the respondent.

The respondent argued the lease restricted inverter placement to the roof and did not grant rights over the adjacent property.

The court, applying principles of contractual interpretation, found in favour of the applicant on both substantive issues, holding that the lease's terms, read holistically and in context of surrounding circumstances, permitted the current setup.

The defendant, Payman Khanlari, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, Hossein Aboutaleb-Maragheh, under Rule 56.01(1)(a) and (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario and was impecunious.

However, applying a holistic approach to the "justness" of the order, the court determined that the action was not plainly devoid of merit and had a good chance of success, and that the plaintiff's financial circumstances were a result of the funds at issue in the action.

Consequently, the motion for security for costs was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff $12,500.00 in costs.

This is a trial management endorsement following a Court of Appeal decision that vacated a partial summary judgment and remitted the matter for a full trial.

The court addresses the plaintiffs' request for bifurcation (liability first, then damages) and the defendants' preference for a combined trial.

Given the age of the plaintiffs and the historical nature of the claims (1966-1983), the court emphasizes the need for expedition while ensuring procedural fairness.

The court orders a hybrid trial, combining affidavit evidence with necessary viva voce testimony, scheduled for 6 weeks, covering liability issues, with damages to be determined later.

The trial is scheduled for May-June 2019, despite scheduling conflicts for some defence counsel, prioritizing the need for a firm trial date.

Former patients of the Oak Ridge Division of the Mental Health Centre in Penetanguishene brought a multi-party action against two physicians and the Crown for breach of fiduciary duty, battery, negligence, and violations of international law norms relating to torture and cruel treatment.

The patients alleged they were subjected to intensive therapy programmes involving psychological and physical torture between 1966 and 1983.

The motions judge granted partial summary judgment for breach of fiduciary duty and dismissed the defendants' motions to dismiss the action as statute-barred or barred by laches.

The appellants appealed, arguing procedural fairness violations and that the action was time-barred.

The Court of Appeal found the motions judge erred in granting partial summary judgment without proper notice and opportunity for the defendants to respond, and set aside those paragraphs.

The court remitted the matter for trial, finding genuine issues requiring trial on limitation and laches issues.

The Plaintiffs sought costs following their successful partial summary judgment motion, where the Defendants' motion to dismiss claims as statute-barred was dismissed, and the Plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment on breach of fiduciary duty was granted.

The Plaintiffs requested $821,580.08 in costs and disbursements on a partial indemnity basis.

The Defendants argued for a significantly lower award of $50,655, alleging over-lawyering and inclusion of costs unrelated to the specific summary judgment motion.

The court awarded the Plaintiffs $282,504.34, disallowing costs for an unsuccessful productions motion and reserving discovery costs for the final adjudication, while finding the Plaintiffs' remaining claims for the summary judgment motion reasonable despite the Defendants' "over-lawyering" argument.

The plaintiffs, victims of the Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh, brought a proposed class action in Ontario against Loblaws (who sourced garments from the factory) and Bureau Veritas (who conducted social audits).

The defendants moved to dismiss the action under Rule 21, arguing the claims were governed by Bangladesh law, were statute-barred, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that while it had jurisdiction simpliciter, the claims were governed by Bangladesh law under the lex loci delicti rule and were statute-barred by a one-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the court found that under both Bangladesh and Ontario law, it was plain and obvious that the defendants owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs, nor was Loblaws vicariously liable or in breach of any fiduciary duty.

The action and the certification motion were dismissed.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' multi-plaintiff action as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs, former involuntary patients at the Oak Ridge psychiatric facility, alleged they were subjected to abusive human experimentation and torture by the defendant doctors between 1966 and 1983.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiffs had a free-standing claim for breach of fiduciary duty that was not subsumed by the expired limitation periods for medical malpractice or tort claims.

The court granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty claim, leaving issues of harm and damages for trial.

This appeal concerns whether a partial stay of proceedings should be granted in favour of arbitration in a class action involving both consumer and non-consumer claims against TELUS Mobility for alleged undisclosed billing practices (rounding up calls to the next minute).

The appellants argued that the motions judge erred in refusing to stay the non-consumer claims pursuant to section 7(5) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The appellants contended that the Court of Appeal's decision in Griffin v. Dell Canada Inc. had been overtaken by the Supreme Court's decision in Seidel v. TELUS Communications Inc. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Griffin remains binding authority in Ontario and has not been overtaken by Seidel, as the two cases were decided in materially different legislative contexts.

This decision addresses eight motions in a billion-dollar secondary market securities class action.

The court granted motions by SNC-Lavalin and its Outside Directors to strike paragraphs from the Plaintiffs' Amended Reply and dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion to deliver a Fresh as Amended Reply, finding that the Plaintiffs were attempting to plead a new, uncapped liability claim without leave and reintroduce previously rejected allegations of bribery in Libya.

The court also granted motions by the Outside Directors and Michael Novak to strike paragraphs from Riadh Ben Aïssa's Statement of Defence, which similarly attempted to introduce allegations of bribery in Libya and knowledge against co-defendants beyond the scope of the granted leave.

Additionally, the court granted protective orders for the examinations for discovery of Messrs.

Ben Aïssa, Duhaime, and Roy, who faced criminal charges, to protect their Charter rights and the integrity of criminal proceedings, but denied requests to stay or postpone discoveries.

The Plaintiffs in a class action sought leave to examine second corporate representatives for AIC Limited and CI Mutual Funds Inc., and to examine non-party witnesses, pursuant to Rules 31.03 and 31.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the Plaintiffs had not demonstrated that satisfactory answers could not be obtained from the initial representatives or that it would be unfair to proceed to trial without further examinations.

The court emphasized that Ontario's discovery rules generally envision a single examination per party, with the representative obliged to inform themselves and provide information based on knowledge, information, and belief, including through undertakings.

Two competing plaintiffs, Kowalyshyn and O'Brien, brought a carriage motion to determine who would represent the class in a securities misrepresentation class action against Valeant Pharmaceuticals and others.

The proposed class actions alleged that Valeant misrepresented its financial results and business practices, causing billions in losses to investors.

The court analyzed 16 carriage factors, finding most to be neutral or non-determinative.

However, the court found that the interrelationship of class actions in multiple jurisdictions strongly favoured Kowalyshyn.

O'Brien's action was closely tied to a parallel action in Quebec, and the court viewed her Ontario action as a surrogate attempt to stay Kowalyshyn's action indirectly.

The court granted carriage to Kowalyshyn and temporarily stayed O'Brien's action.

The plaintiffs, having successfully appealed the dismissal of their class action as time-barred and obtained certification and leave to proceed, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis for the certification and leave motions.

The defendants argued for a significant reduction, citing an "indulgence" (nunc pro tunc order), costs for required steps, limitation period issues, expert reports, divided success, and comparable cases.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments, emphasizing the extraordinary nature of the case, the public interest in access to justice for complex class actions, and the substantial success achieved by the plaintiffs.

The court awarded the plaintiffs the full amount of costs claimed, $2,679,277.82, payable by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

The Court addressed three securities class action appeals on whether limitation periods for statutory secondary-market misrepresentation claims are suspended before leave is granted, and on related nunc pro tunc, special circumstances, leave-threshold, and certification issues.

The CIBC and IMAX appeals were dismissed, while the Celestica appeal was allowed.

Two competing proposed class actions alleged an international price‑fixing conspiracy relating to rechargeable lithium‑ion batteries and related consumer electronic products.

Counsel in each action sought carriage of the class proceeding and a stay of the other action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court assessed factors including the scope of the claims, progress of the actions, proposed representative plaintiffs, class definitions, coordination with related proceedings, and the preparedness and strategic approach of counsel.

While both sets of counsel were experienced and many factors were neutral, the court found that the Shah action demonstrated a more proactive and coordinated approach, including earlier steps to refine the class definition, add defendants, obtain case management, and coordinate expert analysis.

The court concluded that awarding carriage to that action best advanced the interests of the proposed class.

Former psychiatric patients alleged that experimental ‘social therapy’ programs at a provincial psychiatric facility between 1968 and 1979 constituted torture and unlawful experimentation.

The plaintiffs moved to amend their statement of claim to add five additional former patients as plaintiffs decades after the events.

The defendants argued the claims were statute‑barred under historical limitation provisions in the Medical Act, Health Disciplines Act, Mental Hospitals Act, and Mental Health Act.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that those limitation provisions applied where the alleged conduct amounted to torture rather than professional services or treatment.

The motion to amend and add the additional plaintiffs was granted without prejudice to the defendants’ right to later raise limitation defences.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking to have the respondent held in contempt of a prior court order concerning possession and transport of a killer whale, the court was required to determine costs.

Both parties sought substantial or full indemnity costs exceeding $250,000, with the moving party also claiming significant U.S. legal fees incurred in related foreign litigation.

The court reaffirmed that the successful party on a contempt motion is presumptively entitled to costs but retains discretion to depart from that result where warranted.

The court declined to award costs against the successful responding party or deny it costs, finding the moving party had failed to meet the high burden of proving contempt beyond a reasonable doubt but had nonetheless brought the motion reasonably.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $100,000 inclusive of disbursements and tax.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action for abuse of process and breach of a court order requiring attendance at discovery and production of documents, or alternatively to strike a notice on title and compel further productions.

The plaintiff cross-moved to extend the time for discovery after his visa to enter Canada was refused.

The Master found the plaintiff's failure to attend discovery was explained and his document production, while deficient, showed substantial compliance.

The Master dismissed the motion to dismiss the action and the motion to strike the notice on title, finding no abuse of process and lacking jurisdiction to strike the notice.

The plaintiff was granted an extension for discovery but ordered to post security and provide a further and better affidavit of documents.