Rebecca Curcio

Following the dismissal of an urgent injunction application regarding a commercial tenancy, the respondent landlord sought costs against the applicant tenant and two of its non-party shareholders personally.

The court found that the 'person of straw' test was not met, as the applicant was the proper party to the lease dispute.

However, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of process, finding that the two shareholders engaged in gross misconduct by authorizing and funding the litigation while withholding funds from the insolvent applicant, thereby depriving it of the ability to pay rent or a costs award.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $29,405, payable jointly and severally by the applicant and the two shareholders.

Supplemental reasons issued to correct an error in the court's previous decision (2022 ONSC 12).

The court corrected paragraph 4 to clarify that Lloyds should not have been listed as a party challenging the forum of the action.

The plaintiffs brought an action against multiple insurers for indemnity regarding environmental damage.

Several foreign defendants failed to deliver statements of defence within the required time limits, and one was noted in default.

The defendants sought an extension of time to defend or bring jurisdictional motions, arguing the court should wait for the outcome of a parallel proceeding commenced by one of the insurers in the United States.

The court refused to delay the Ontario proceeding, finding no prejudice to the defendants in requiring them to respond timely, and ordered the defendants to deliver their statements of defence or motion records by a specified deadline.

The plaintiff brought a civil action against the Toronto Police Services Board and individual officers, alleging they used excessive force during his arrest and were negligent in his subsequent detention.

The plaintiff claimed he was severely beaten without warning, while the police testified they executed a controlled take-down after he resisted arrest.

The court found the police officers' evidence credible and reliable, concluding that the force used was necessary, justified, and not excessive under section 25(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, ultimately dismissing the action in its entirety.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, or to strike the statement of claim.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented, had commenced the action against the defendant, a YMCA employee, based on an internal incident report disclosed during a related Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario proceeding.

The court found that the plaintiff issued the claim to manipulate and threaten the defendant into retracting evidence.

The court dismissed the action as an abuse of process and struck the statement of claim without leave to amend for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and violating pleading rules.