R. Douglas Elliott

The applicant sought costs of $10,000 on a partial indemnity scale for a motion regarding funds removed from a law firm's trust account.

The respondent sought costs of $74,940.75 on a substantial indemnity scale, claiming success on the motion.

The court found mixed success, as the applicant's motion prompted the return of $68,544.90 to the trust account, but the applicant was unsuccessful on the balance of the motion.

The court made no order as to costs for either the motion or the cross-motion.

The plaintiff moved to strike numerous paragraphs of the defendants' statements of defence on the basis of res judicata or abuse of process, arguing the defendants were seeking to re-litigate findings made by the Mining and Lands Tribunal (MLT) regarding a hydroelectric dam approval.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the impugned pleadings fairly responded to the plaintiff's allegations of delay and misfeasance.

Furthermore, the court held that the MLT decision was merely a recommendation to the Minister and not a final judicial decision capable of grounding res judicata.

The motion against the Independent Electricity System Operator was also dismissed as it was not a party to the MLT proceeding.

The respondents brought a motion for an order authorizing the named Estate Trustee to complete the sale of the deceased's property to bona fide third-party purchasers.

The applicant, who was challenging the validity of the will, opposed the motion, arguing that an estate trustee during litigation should complete the sale instead.

The court granted the motion, finding that the named Estate Trustee owed no fiduciary duties to the applicant until the will was proven invalid, and that delaying the sale would be detrimental to the estate and the purchasers.

Following the dismissal of a proposed $240 billion class action regarding a data breach, the successful defendants sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued costs should be limited to a partial indemnity scale for a pleadings motion.

The court found that the plaintiffs' unsubstantiated allegations of professional misconduct against defence counsel, combined with their egregious violations of pleading rules and massive expansion of the claim, justified costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded $725,000 to Capital One and $500,000 to Amazon Web.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a $240 billion class action against a financial institution and a cloud storage provider following a massive data breach perpetrated by a former employee of the storage provider.

The plaintiffs alleged numerous causes of action, including intrusion upon seclusion, misappropriation of personality, conversion, breach of confidence, and negligence, arguing that the defendants misappropriated and misused the class members' personal information by retaining and aggregating it beyond its initial purpose.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs' Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim egregiously contravened the rules of pleading and failed to disclose any legally viable causes of action against the corporate defendants.

The pleading was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The court reconsidered a previous costs award of $112,500 made against the plaintiffs following the dismissal of their refusals and interlocutory injunction motions in a proposed class action regarding a data breach.

The plaintiffs argued the defendants' costs claim reflected over-lawyering and sought costs in the cause.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' submissions, finding their motions were unnecessary, overreaching, and deplorably prosecuted.

The court confirmed the original partial indemnity costs award of $112,500 and awarded an additional $12,500 for the costs submissions, for a total of $125,000 payable to the defendants.

The applicant brought a motion to appoint replacement estate trustees for the estate of her late husband, following the resignation of the previous trustees amidst a highly fractious family dispute.

The applicant sought the appointment of three family members, while the responding parties sought the appointment of a neutral third party, either Scotiatrust or a senior lawyer.

The court found that the extreme animosity between the two family camps necessitated a neutral institutional trustee to prevent further litigation and ensure the estate's administration.

Scotiatrust was appointed as the Estate Trustee During Litigation.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach sought court approval to settle and discontinue their claims against the defendant GitHub.

GitHub, an American corporation, had challenged the court's jurisdiction.

After an initial adjournment to address jurisdictional concerns, the plaintiffs submitted revised materials.

The court approved the settlement, finding that discontinuing the action against GitHub was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the litigation risks, costs, and the fact that the remaining defendants had sufficient financial strength to meet any damages.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach sought court approval of a settlement with the defendant GitHub.

The court declined to approve the settlement as proposed, noting that it could not make a binding ruling on its own jurisdiction based on the consent of the parties, and that the substantive merits of the settlement (essentially a discontinuance) did not support approval at this stage.

At the parties' request, the motion was adjourned sine die.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action brought unsuccessful motions for an injunction and for refusals.

The Capital One defendants sought costs of $135,000 on a substantial indemnity basis or $112,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued they should be awarded costs despite losing, claiming they achieved their objective.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding their motions were ill-advised and meritless.

Costs were awarded to the Capital One defendants in the amount of $112,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

In a proposed class action regarding a data breach, the plaintiffs brought a motion for an injunction to enjoin or supervise communications from the defendants to putative class members.

The defendants intended to send a notice to 51,000 affected individuals offering free credit monitoring.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to intervene as the proposed notice did not affect the integrity of the class proceedings or compromise the putative class members' rights.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach brought motions to compel answers to questions refused on cross-examinations of two affiants and an omnibus motion to strike out various affidavits, factum paragraphs, and a sealing motion.

The court dismissed the refusals motions, finding the questions asked were beyond the narrow scope of the underlying motions (an injunction motion and a sealing motion) and were properly refused.

The court also dismissed the omnibus motion, finding no reason to strike the evidence or alter the timetable for the upcoming jurisdiction and certification motions.

In a proposed class action regarding a massive data breach, the plaintiffs brought a motion for substitutional service on a defendant residing in the United States whose exact whereabouts were unknown.

The court held that because the defendant's address was unknown, the Hague Convention did not apply, and service could be effected under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion, allowing substitutional service by emailing the documents to the defendant's U.S. criminal defence attorney.

In an ongoing estate dispute between a widow and her children, the applicant widow brought a motion to add two corporate parties, admit a late affidavit regarding her health, substitute written interrogatories for oral cross-examination, and determine the scope of cross-examination.

The court added the corporate parties, finding one to be a necessary party.

The court admitted the late affidavit but excluded the attached medical reports as inadmissible hearsay.

The court declined to dispense with oral cross-examination, finding insufficient evidence of serious harm, but ordered specific accommodations for the 93-year-old applicant.

Finally, the court limited the scope of cross-examination to the three issues previously deemed urgent to conserve judicial resources.

Two rival consortia of law firms brought a carriage motion to determine who would prosecute a class action against Capital One, Amazon, and GitHub regarding a massive data breach affecting 6 million Canadians.

The court evaluated the competing case theories, noting that while both actions were viable, the Del Giudice Action's strategy of including Amazon and GitHub as defendants, despite adding complexity and litigation risk, was preferable for advancing the interests of the class and the goals of the Class Proceedings Act.

Carriage was granted to the Del Giudice Action.

In a proposed class action alleging systemic gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment within the Waterloo Regional Police Service, the parties brought several pre-certification motions.

The plaintiffs' motions to compel answers to questions refused on cross-examination by the Chief of Police and the Association President were dismissed.

The defendants' motions to strike the plaintiffs' expert evidence and portions of the plaintiffs' affidavits were deemed premature and deferred to the certification motion, though the expert opinion portion of the report was excluded.

Following a motion where the moving party successfully sought to withdraw admissions involving approximately $14,000,000, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that the responding parties took a tactical and precarious position in opposing the motion, as the granting of leave was foreseeable absent any evidence of prejudice.

Costs were awarded to the moving party fixed at $15,000.

The moving party, in the midst of complex family trust litigation, sought leave to withdraw admissions made in a previous affidavit and to file three new affidavits.

The moving party argued the admissions regarding multi-million dollar shareholder loans were made inadvertently due to confusion and reliance on her former, now-deceased counsel.

The responding parties opposed, arguing the admissions were formal and the new evidence was an attempt to repair her case mid-hearing.

The court granted the motion, finding the admissions were likely inadvertent, raised a triable issue, and caused no non-compensable legal prejudice to the responding parties.

The court emphasized the need to decide the case on its true merits rather than a solicitor's or party's mistake.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action for civil conspiracy, defamation, and intentional infliction of mental distress against the defendants for distributing alleged hate speech pamphlets at a Pride Parade.

The lead defendant moved to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions and as an abuse of process, and alternatively to strike the claim.

The plaintiffs moved for a Norwich Order to identify the anonymous co-defendants.

The court held that the defendant was estopped from denying the pamphlets were hate speech based on a prior Supreme Court decision, and thus the anti-SLAPP motion failed.

However, the court struck the class action because the torts pleaded are individual in nature and cannot be brought on behalf of a collective group.

The court granted leave to amend the claim to an opt-in joinder action and granted the Norwich Order on terms.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add a new corporate defendant and to consolidate two related actions.

The proposed defendant opposed the motion, arguing the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court applied the discoverability doctrine and found that the plaintiffs did not know, and ought not to have known, the true identity of the testing laboratory until they received a letter from defence counsel in 2011.

The court granted leave to add the defendant, concluding the claim was not clearly statute-barred, but allowed the defendant to raise the limitation defence at a later stage.