Pierre Champagne

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action arising from his removal from a KISS concert held in Ottawa.

The motion judge dismissed the action pursuant to Rules 57.03(2) and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that the appellant had not complied with the Rules and had failed to pay outstanding costs awards.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the motion judge properly exercised her discretion in balancing the interests of justice against the general principle that matters should be heard on their merits, particularly given the appellant's deliberate disregard of court orders and costs awards.

The defendants brought a motion arguing that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction over the litigation.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants carried on business in Ontario and that the contract for the sale of a tractor was formed in Ontario.

The court applied the real and substantial connection test and found that the defendants' activities did not amount to carrying on business in Ontario.

Furthermore, the court determined that the contract was formed in Quebec during a telephone conversation.

Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to establish a geographic connection to Ontario, and the defendants' motion was granted.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the dismissal of the plaintiff's action against Gene Simmons and Canadian Tire Centre (CTC) due to the plaintiff's continuous non-compliance and disrespectful conduct.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs payable by the self-represented plaintiff to Gene Simmons in the amount of $5,108.03 and to CTC in the amount of $13,021.82, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court found the plaintiff's actions, including failure to approve a draft order, requesting unnecessary case conferences, and re-issuing a rejected amended statement of claim, unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings and increased costs for the defendants.

The defendants, Gene Simmons and Canadian Tire Centre, brought motions to dismiss the plaintiff's action due to his repeated failure to pay costs orders and non-compliance with court rules and orders.

The plaintiff, Byeongheon Lee, a self-represented litigant, had outstanding costs orders of $5,500 and $500, and had failed to attend multiple case conferences.

The court granted the motions, dismissing the action against Gene Simmons and Canadian Tire Centre, emphasizing the importance of abiding by civil procedure rules and court orders, even for self-represented litigants who have been afforded considerable accommodation.

The plaintiff, Daly Square Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment in a mortgage action seeking approximately $130,000 plus interest and possession of the mortgaged property, and dismissal of the defendants' counterclaim.

The defendants, 1786097 Ontario Inc. and Camille Mikhael, opposed, arguing for equitable set-off and that their $500,000 counterclaim for property damage was not statute-barred.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on both its claim and the defendants' counterclaim, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding equitable set-off and the limitation period for the counterclaim.

The court also ruled that the defendants were not entitled to legal set-off.

The applicant, a third mortgagee, brought an urgent application for an injunction to prevent the first mortgagee from selling a commercial property under a power of sale, and for an order permitting it to redeem the mortgage.

The court found that the applicant's right to redeem was extinguished when the first mortgagee accepted an offer to purchase the property, as the applicant had failed to tender the required funds when it had the opportunity to do so.

The court also held that the applicant failed to meet the three-part test for an interlocutory injunction, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding alleged bad faith, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents.

The application was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside ex parte Anton Piller and Mareva orders obtained by the plaintiff employer in an action for fraud.

The plaintiff alleged that its former employee and his wife used a shell company to secretly mark up the prices of electronic components purchased from Chinese suppliers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had made full and fair disclosure of material facts when obtaining the orders.

The court also held that the evidence justified the continuation of both orders, as there was a strong prima facie case of fraud, a risk of destruction of evidence, and a risk of dissipation of assets.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment on a mortgage and sought to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim as statute-barred.

However, the plaintiff failed to include the request to dismiss the counterclaim in its notice of motion.

Citing the need for active case management and proportionality, the court declined to dismiss the limitation period argument outright and instead ordered a timetable allowing the plaintiff to amend its notice of motion and the defendants to file responding evidence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant to answer questions refused during an examination for discovery in an action for damages caused by a leaking oil tank.

The plaintiffs sought information about other customer complaints and claims regarding corroded steel tanks.

The court found that the defendant's previous answers were evasive and ordered the defendant to provide a detailed list of all customer complaints or claims about water build-up or leaks between 2002 and 2011.

The court also ordered the production of reports to the TSSA and advice received from insurers regarding risk mitigation, while upholding privilege over reports made to insurers.

The appellants, minority shareholders in a family lumber business, appealed the dismissal of their application for an oppression remedy and winding-up order under the Business Corporations Act.

They argued the motion judge erred by failing to address the winding-up provisions, taking judicial notice of political news, and finding parts of their claim statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the criteria for winding-up were the same as for oppression, which the judge correctly found was not established.

The court also upheld the judge's findings that the appellant had no reasonable expectation of becoming an officer or receiving dividends given the company's conservative management and industry challenges.

The applicant, a minority shareholder in a family-owned lumber company, brought an application for an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act, seeking an order to force the respondents to buy out her shares or liquidate the company.

She alleged that the company's refusal to pay dividends despite being profitable, and its refusal to buy her shares, constituted oppressive conduct.

The respondents argued the claim was statute-barred and that the retention of capital was necessary due to the cyclical nature of the softwood lumber industry and the expiration of the Canada-US softwood lumber agreement.

The court found that while the claim regarding recent non-payment of dividends was not statute-barred, the applicant did not have a reasonable expectation of receiving dividends given the industry's challenges.

The court concluded that the company's conservative management style and decision to retain a high working capital were valid business decisions and did not constitute oppression.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (TPSGC), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for additional costs, arguing that the limitation period had expired.

The plaintiff, Amor Construction, contended that the novation of the contract did not trigger the limitation period and that TPSGC acted in bad faith by refusing to engage in the contractual dispute resolution process.

The court found that the limitation period began when TPSGC explicitly rejected the claim on November 3, 2015, not upon contract novation in November 2012, given prior assurances and the nature of information requested.

The court also concluded that TPSGC's conduct constituted bad faith in the performance of its contractual obligations.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a subrogated claim against W.O. Stinson & Son Ltd. for negligence following an oil tank leak in their basement.

The claim alleged Stinson was negligent in repositioning the tank and during annual maintenance, specifically regarding water dip tests, warnings about corrosion, and recognizing signs of damage.

The court found that Stinson met the standard of care required of a fuel oil service contractor and supplier, complying with TSSA regulations and industry standards.

The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to establish causation, as it could not be proven that "but for" Stinson's actions or omissions, the leak would not have occurred.

Consequently, the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed.

Damages were also assessed for completeness, with some criticisms of the remediation costs.

The defendants brought motions for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision that dismissed their Rule 21 motions to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs, including a former RCMP member, claimed damages for harassment, assault, and sexual assault.

The defendants argued the claims were barred by section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act because the plaintiff received a pension for PTSD.

The court refused leave to appeal, finding no conflicting case law on the principles for striking pleadings and no good reason to doubt the motion judge's conclusion that it was not plain and obvious the entire claim was barred.

The appellant denturist appealed the revocation of his licence and a costs award by the Discipline Committee.

The Committee found the appellant had provided dental services outside his scope of practice to multiple patients, including vulnerable children, and submitted 911 false insurance claims totaling over $91,000 using the identities of two dentists.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the penalty of revocation was not unreasonable given the egregious nature of the misconduct, and the costs award of $70,000 (representing 55% of the College's costs) was based on appropriate legal principles.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the successful applicants following a motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The award was based on the respondents' unreasonable, reprehensible, and bad faith conduct, which involved a conspiracy to circumvent a unanimous shareholders' agreement through a sham default and share seizure.

This conduct, including high-handed actions such as changing locks and involving police, justified the higher scale of costs.

Costs were fixed at $30,000, to be shared jointly and severally by the respondent shareholders and secured creditors.

The plaintiff, Devon Hakvoort, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking costs, enhanced pre-judgment interest, and professional fees in a fire loss insurance claim, despite the principal amount owed by the defendant insurer, North Waterloo Farmer’s Mutual Insurance, having been paid.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant had discharged all its contractual obligations and that the plaintiff was not entitled to further compensation.

The action was dismissed without costs, with the plaintiff ordered to pay a previously awarded $1,000.00 in costs.

The court noted that the litigation could have been avoided through a tolling agreement or earlier use of the statutory appraisal process under the Insurance Act, and criticized the plaintiff's initial pleading and abandoned bad faith claim.

The defendant's motion for leave to appeal an order granting the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim and requiring the defendant to answer discovery refusals was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought costs of $7,672.26 on a partial indemnity basis for the written motion.

The court found the plaintiffs' docketed hours excessive and noted the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

Costs were fixed at $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant, W.O. Stinson & Son Limited, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their Statement of Claim and required the defendant to answer questions refused at discovery.

The underlying action involved an oil leak from a tank installed by the defendant.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision regarding the amendment of pleadings or the discovery refusals.

Furthermore, the court held that the proposed appeal did not raise matters of general importance, as the issues were specific to the facts and pleadings of the case.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to amend their statement of claim and to compel answers to certain refused questions arising from examinations for discovery in an action alleging negligence and breach of contract relating to an oil tank leak at their residential property.

The proposed amendments included pleading that the defendant sold the oil tank and breached obligations under the Sale of Goods Act.

The court held that the amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but rather advanced alternative legal bases and particulars arising from the same factual matrix already pleaded.

Accordingly, the amendments were permitted despite limitation period arguments.

The court also ruled on several discovery refusals, ordering answers to questions relevant to the defendant’s knowledge of corrosion risks and similar tank issues, subject to proportionality considerations.