Peter Wardle

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant to attend examinations for discovery, and the defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, arguing they were undischarged bankrupts and nominal plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs, finding that the individual plaintiff was not a nominal plaintiff and that it would not be just to order security given the plaintiffs' strong case on the merits that their financial ruin was caused by the defendants' actions.

The court granted the motion to compel discovery, ordering the defendant to attend by video in short increments to accommodate his health issues.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario sought costs following successful applications against three physicians who failed to cooperate with regulatory investigations related to COVID-19.

The court rejected arguments that the respondents were public interest litigants or entitled to costs despite partial success.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity scale against all three respondents, totaling approximately $40,000.

The defendants, former legal counsel for the plaintiffs, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' solicitor negligence action on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants were negligent in failing to argue the unconscionability and public policy branches of the Tercon test regarding an exclusion clause in the underlying trial against Toyota.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that the limitation period did not begin to run until the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal in the underlying action, as the plaintiffs reasonably relied on the defendants' advice to pursue appeals and a legal proceeding was not an 'appropriate means' to seek a remedy until the appeal process was exhausted.

The applicants sought $430,000 in costs following a successful application regarding a construction dispute.

The respondents argued that a settlement offer they made should limit the applicants' costs to the period before the offer, and that disbursements for online legal research should not be compensable.

The court found that the respondents' non-monetary settlement offer was more favourable than the judgment obtained by the applicants, as it would have led to a faster final determination of the underlying dispute.

Consequently, the applicants' costs were limited to $92,119.92 incurred before the offer.

The court also disallowed the $4,060.18 claimed for online legal research, finding the applicants failed to prove these costs did not fall within standard office overhead.

The applicants, a consortium of construction companies building the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, sought declarations that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted an Emergency under their Project Agreement, entitling them to a Variation Enquiry for an extension of the Substantial Completion Date.

The respondents moved to stay the application, arguing the contract required all litigation to be deferred until after Substantial Completion.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding it would cause irreparable harm by depriving the applicants of their contractual right to seek an extension.

The court granted the declarations, holding that the pandemic was an Emergency and that the respondents had required the applicants to implement additional or overriding procedures (social distancing), thereby triggering the Variation Enquiry process.

The plaintiff moved for certification of a class action on behalf of debenture holders of Discovery Air Inc., alleging oppression by the defendants in a series of transactions that transferred Discovery's primary asset to Clairvest at a material discount.

Clairvest consented to certification but disputed the common issues and sought discovery directions, while the remaining defendants argued the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action against them.

The court found the pleadings sufficiently detailed to disclose a cause of action against the individual directors and the Top Aces entities.

The court certified the action, adopted a broad definition of the common issues with some additions proposed by Clairvest regarding causation and reasonable expectations, and declined to order non-party production or expanded discovery at this early stage.

Following an appeal of an arbitration award where success was divided, the appellants sought costs of $24,322.76.

The respondents argued that each party should bear their own costs or, alternatively, costs should be fixed at $3,500.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Finding that the appellants were successful in having the arbitrator's reasons deemed inadequate on one issue, while the respondents were successful in having the matter remitted to the original arbitrator, the court concluded that success was divided and made no order as to costs.

The appellants sought leave to appeal an arbitration award arising from the termination of a medical practice business relationship.

The arbitrator had awarded the respondents $946,071, which included a refund of overhead expenses and 'Special Expenses' deducted by the appellants.

The court found that the parties had not contracted out of the right to appeal under s. 45 of the Arbitration Act.

Leave to appeal was granted because the adequacy of the arbitrator's reasons constituted a question of law.

The court held that the arbitrator's reasons were inadequate regarding the Special Expenses, as they failed to explain why the appellants were ordered to repay those amounts.

The court varied the award to order repayment of a 5% overhead increase and remitted the Special Expenses issue back to the original arbitrator for determination.

The applicant sought judgment for $7.45 million pursuant to a settlement agreement.

The respondent claimed a right of set-off for insurance deductibles under the construction contract's owner-controlled insurance policies.

The applicant argued that a release executed as part of the settlement extinguished the respondent's right to claim the deductibles.

The court interpreted the release in its factual matrix and concluded it was limited to the five specific disputes settled, and did not terminate the applicant's ongoing obligation to pay deductibles under the continuing contract.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that the defendant law firm, Aylesworth LLP, was vicariously liable for the alleged professional negligence of a solicitor, Welsh.

Welsh had a 'counsel' relationship with Aylesworth but operated his own independent practice in Oakville, through which he provided legal services to the plaintiffs regarding a fraudulent investment scheme.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court held that Aylesworth was not vicariously liable because it did not materially enhance the risk of wrongdoing, had no knowledge or control over Welsh's independent files, and did not hold Welsh out as its agent to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff brought an action against 39 defendants, including lawyers, police officers, and private investigators, seeking $20 million in damages for various torts including abuse of process, negligent investigation, and conspiracy.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The court found the action was a collateral attack on previous court orders finding the plaintiff in contempt of court.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and alternatively struck the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Substantial costs were awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff, a former member of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, sued the College, its external counsel, the complainant, and witnesses for damages arising from the revocation of her registration following a disciplinary hearing.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The court granted the motion, finding that the College and its counsel were protected by statutory immunity under the Social Work and Social Services Work Act, 1998, and that the complainant and witnesses were protected by the doctrine of absolute privilege.

The court also struck claims relying on evidence rendered inadmissible by statute and claims lacking sufficient material facts, granting leave to amend only certain specific claims.

The plaintiffs brought an action alleging solicitor negligence arising from a share purchase transaction involving a property previously used as a gas station.

The solicitor defendants admitted a breach of duty for failing to disclose the property's prior use but sought summary dismissal on the basis that the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act.

The court held that reasonable discoverability arose when a prospective purchaser abandoned a resale transaction due to contamination concerns, triggering the two‑year limitation period.

Because the action was commenced after the limitation period expired, the claim against those defendants was dismissed.

Claims against other lawyer defendants raised genuine issues of fact regarding the scope of retainer and limitation warnings and were permitted to proceed to trial.

Following the dismissal of a motion challenging Ontario’s jurisdiction simpliciter and asserting forum non conveniens, the successful party sought costs on a partial indemnity basis of approximately $38,000.

The court considered the reasonableness of the claimed preparation time and whether costs should include fees for both senior and junior counsel.

While acknowledging the value of mentoring junior counsel, the court held that the circumstances did not justify indemnifying the successful party for two counsel on the motion.

After assessing the complexity and importance of the motion and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, the court reduced the requested amount.

Costs were awarded in the amount of $30,000 all inclusive.

The applicant, a unitholder in an income fund, sought an order requiring the fund's trustees to call a special meeting of unitholders to vote on a proposed transaction involving the restructuring of preference shares and secured notes.

The court found that the proposed transaction was objectively 'materially adverse' to the unitholders because it postponed payments on the secured notes.

Consequently, under the Declaration of Trust, the trustees lacked the authority to vote the fund's common shares in favour of the transaction without unitholder approval.

The court ordered the special meeting of the company to be adjourned pending a unitholder vote.

In a proposed securities class action alleging misrepresentations in the primary and secondary markets, the plaintiffs sought an order compelling defendants to deliver statements of defence and requested that the certification motion be heard together with a leave motion under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act.

The defendants opposed delivering defences before certification and sought a sequence of motions beginning with the leave motion, followed by Rule 21 motions and then certification.

The court held that pleadings should generally be completed before certification and that ordering the delivery of a statement of defence was not contrary to law or due process.

However, the court limited the requirement to defendants who filed affidavits under s. 138.8(2) of the Securities Act, while permitting other defendants to plead voluntarily without losing the ability to bring Rule 21 motions.

The court further ordered that the leave motion and certification motion be heard together to avoid delay, inefficiency, and serial appeals.