P. Smith

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant for an unprovoked assault at a stag-and-doe party that resulted in a T11 compression fracture.

The defendant failed to defend the action and was noted in default.

The court found the defendant liable for battery and assessed damages, awarding $85,000 in non-pecuniary general damages, $17,585 for past income loss, $50,000 for loss of competitive advantage, and $21,640 for future care costs, totaling $177,248.60.

The applicant husband brought an originating application to terminate his spousal support obligations following his voluntary early retirement at age 63.

The parties had previously executed a separation agreement providing for $6,000 per month in spousal support, which was silent on the issue of retirement.

The court held that the husband's voluntary retirement did not constitute a material change in circumstances that would justify deviating from the separation agreement.

The court also rejected the husband's argument that continuing support would constitute impermissible double-dipping.

Spousal support was ordered to continue indefinitely at a reduced quantum of $1,200 per month, retroactive to the date the husband unilaterally ceased payments.

The applicant, a health science company, sought a declaration that it owned a family of patent applications filed by the respondents relating to a 'Device-Less Invention' for cellular transplantation.

The applicant argued the invention was a modification of its own technology and was developed using confidential information obtained by the respondent doctor during a consulting agreement.

The respondents brought a motion to stay the application based on a forum selection clause in a separate clinical trial agreement, which the court dismissed after finding the consulting agreement governed the dispute.

On the merits, the court dismissed the application, finding that the respondent doctor had independently conceived and demonstrated the utility of the invention years before entering into the consulting agreement with the applicant.

The moving parties sought leave to bring a motion after the action had been set down for trial and requested consolidation of their action against a municipal official with a related municipal damages action.

The court considered Rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding post‑set‑down motions and concluded that leave should be granted due to trial fairness concerns arising from a recent change of counsel and incomplete preparation for trial.

The court then applied Rule 6.01 and s. 138 of the Courts of Justice Act to determine whether consolidation was appropriate.

Despite the respondent’s argument that the proceedings were at different procedural stages and consolidation would cause delay, the court found significant overlap in factual issues, witnesses, and potential findings.

Consolidation was ordered to avoid inconsistent results and to promote efficient use of judicial resources.

Following the dismissal of an action seeking a declaration that a public road existed along the shoreline of Georgian Bay properties, several defendant groups sought costs.

The defendants argued for substantial indemnity costs based on alleged misconduct by the municipality, while the plaintiff contended that costs should be limited and apportioned globally among defendants.

The court rejected the claim for substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiff.

Applying Rule 57.01 principles, the court assessed partial indemnity costs individually for each successful defendant group, reducing some claims to account for duplication, inefficiencies, and unsupported expert disbursements.

Costs were awarded separately to the defendants in amounts the court found reasonable and proportionate.