R.A. Muir

The plaintiff in a defamation action brought a motion under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike various paragraphs of the defendant's fresh as amended statement of defence.

The plaintiff argued the paragraphs did not comply with the rules of pleading and were irrelevant, repetitive, and improper.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the impugned paragraphs generally complied with the rules of pleading and that a pleading must be read generously and not subjected to a standard of perfection.

The moving party sought costs after being mostly successful on a motion to prohibit the responding party's counsel from appearing on a pending motion to quash.

The court found the moving party was entitled to costs but reduced the requested amount by 50% due to divided success and the straightforward nature of the motion.

Costs were fixed at $6,200 for the moving party and $500 for the supporting party, payable after the final determination of the remaining motions.

The respondent brought a motion to prohibit the applicants' counsel from appearing on a pending motion to quash a summons to witness, arguing that the counsel was the primary source of contentious evidence.

The respondent also sought to strike portions of the applicants' affidavits.

The court granted the motion to prohibit counsel from appearing, finding it improper for a lawyer to act as counsel when they are the source of important and contentious evidence, even if provided via information and belief.

The motion to strike the affidavits was dismissed as premature.

The plaintiff brought a motion to establish a discovery plan, seeking production of three disputed categories of documents relating to other properties included in or removed from the Greenbelt Area.

The court dismissed the request for documents relating to 15 sites removed after a 10-year review and submissions regarding 700 properties, finding them irrelevant to the plaintiff's specific allegations.

However, the court ordered the production of documents relating to certain Vaughan lands, as they were relevant to the plaintiff's pleaded allegations of arbitrary and capricious treatment compared to the owners of those lands.

Following a successful motion by the defendant to temporarily stay the action, the court determined the quantum of costs payable by the responding party, General Sprinklers Inc. The moving party sought partial indemnity costs of $11,127.66, while the responding party suggested $5,000.00.

The court found the moving party's requested fees excessive due to overlap with related motions and fixed costs at $7,500.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a property registered to one of the defendants, claiming the property was beneficially owned by another defendant who owed them money.

The plaintiffs also sought to amend their statement of claim and file supplementary affidavit evidence.

The court allowed the late affidavit and the amendment to the statement of claim.

However, the court dismissed the motion for a CPL, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a triable issue regarding an interest in the land, as the funds advanced were merely an unsecured loan used to pay property expenses.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend a court-ordered deadline for serving an amended statement of claim to add a winter maintenance contractor as a defendant.

The presumptive limitation period had expired, but a previous order allowed the addition based on discoverability, setting a service deadline of March 31, 2016.

The plaintiff failed to meet this deadline and delayed over two years before bringing this motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to adequately explain the delay, show inadvertence, or prove that the proposed defendant would not suffer prejudice.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking production of the unredacted financial statements of the corporate defendant for the years 2015 to 2017.

The plaintiff alleged the individual defendant breached a non-compete clause and sought disgorgement of benefits received by the corporate defendant.

A previous order allowed the corporate defendant to redact non-relevant information from the financial statements.

After reviewing the unredacted statements pursuant to Rule 30.06(d), the Master concluded that the redacted information was not relevant to the disgorgement claim, as the statements only provided a general high-level overview without the specific details sought by the plaintiff.

The motion for production of the unredacted statements was dismissed.

Following a successful motion by Maple Drywall Inc. for leave to intervene, the court determined the issues of costs and the scope of intervention.

The court awarded costs to the intervenor, rejecting the defendants' argument that the motion materials were misleading, but reduced the requested amount as excessive.

The court also set the scope of the intervenor's participation, limiting its examination of each defendant to three hours.

The defendant brought a motion to compel answers to undertakings and questions refused on discovery in an action involving a claim on a surety bond.

The court applied the tests for relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ordered the plaintiff to answer questions relating to time and material costs, documents reviewed for an expert report, and the provision of false statutory declarations.

The court dismissed the motion regarding questions about the plaintiff's calculation of overhead and profits and its payment of trades and suppliers, finding them irrelevant to the lump sum contract claim.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add an insurer as a defendant for unidentified motorist coverage, over four years after learning an unidentified vehicle was involved in the accident.

The proposed defendant argued the claim was statute-barred.

The court applied recent appellate jurisprudence holding that the limitation period for an unidentified motorist claim does not begin to run until a demand for indemnity is made and refused.

As no demand had yet been refused, the limitation period had not expired, and the motion to amend was granted.

The moving party, a joint venture contractor, brought motions to temporarily stay several construction lien and bond actions commenced by its subcontractors pending the outcome of an ongoing arbitration between the moving party and the project owners.

The court granted leave under the Construction Lien Act to bring the motions and ordered a temporary stay of the actions, finding it just to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings, particularly regarding the enforceability of a 'pay when paid' clause.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 25.10 and 30.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking document production and particulars regarding an alleged agreement of purchase and sale for parkland.

The court found the plaintiff's responses to the document inspection requests satisfactory, as the plaintiff produced the draft agreements and emails relied upon.

However, the court ordered the plaintiff to provide further particulars regarding the facts relied upon to support the allegation that the unsigned draft agreement was binding and properly entered into.

The plaintiff purchaser and defendant vendor entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property.

The transaction failed to close after a dispute over zoning conditions and disclosure of OMB mediation details.

The plaintiff sued for specific performance and moved for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1.01.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that while there was a triable issue regarding an interest in land, the equities favoured the defendant because the property was not unique and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The court also dismissed the defendant's motion, as the plaintiff's claim was not frivolous or vexatious.

Following two motions regarding refusals at examinations for discovery, the successful plaintiff sought costs of $12,500 on an elevated scale based on an offer to settle and the defendant's conduct.

The court found that the plaintiff did not obtain a result more favourable than the offer to settle, as the specific questions ordered to be answered differed from the offer.

The court also found the defendant's conduct was not reprehensible.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $7,000.

The plaintiffs, property developers, brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add three new defendants and plead conspiracy and oppression regarding allegedly inflated billings for deficiency work.

The proposed defendants opposed the motion, arguing the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiffs had exercised reasonable diligence in investigating the billing discrepancies and raised a triable issue regarding discoverability.

The court held that the proposed amendments disclosed a reasonable cause of action and would not cause undue prejudice.

Following a successful discovery motion where the plaintiff obtained an order for answers to undertakings and refusals, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $26,964.65.

The defendant argued the amount was excessive and suggested $5,000.

The court found the plaintiff was largely successful and the issues were complex, justifying senior counsel.

However, the court reduced the requested amount by 50% due to the use of two senior lawyers, a late adjournment caused by the plaintiff, and time spent on general discovery matters.

The court fixed costs at $13,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff and defendant brothers both brought motions to compel answers to questions refused during examinations for discovery in a dispute over the ownership of shares in a tire storage business.

The Master ordered the plaintiff to answer questions regarding his financial circumstances at the time of an alleged loan, but dismissed requests for information about his other investments.

The Master also ordered the defendant to answer questions regarding the sale of the disputed shares, rejecting the defendant's informal request for divided discovery.

The respondent brought a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) obtained without notice by the applicant.

The parties were involved in a joint venture to re-develop properties, and a dispute arose over an agreement of purchase and sale for one of the properties owned by the respondent.

The court found that the applicant established a triable issue regarding a reasonable claim to an interest in the property, as the reasons for the failure to close the transaction remained unclear and could not be resolved on the paper record.

The motion to discharge the CPL was dismissed.

The plaintiff in a constructive dismissal action brought a motion to compel answers to discovery questions and for non-party production of a workplace investigation file.

The defendant hospital refused to disclose the identities of medical residents interviewed during the investigation, claiming common-law privilege under the Wigmore test.

The court found that while the communications originated in confidence, the public interest in the correct disposal of the litigation outweighed the interest in protecting the identities, as the case involved a routine workplace dispute rather than patient safety or physician credentials.

The court ordered disclosure of the identities and production of the unredacted investigation file.