Richard C. Gates

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on liability arising from a highway collision in which she was struck from behind while walking on the shoulder.

The court applied the post-Hryniak summary judgment framework and held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the liability issues.

The driver was found negligent given his undisclosed seizure history, recent seizure, alcohol consumption, late medication use, and breaches of G1 licence conditions.

The court also found negligent entrustment against the defendant who allowed him to drive and held the vehicle owners vicariously liable under s. 192 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The plaintiff was permitted to proceed to an assessment of damages, and partial indemnity costs were fixed.

Supplementary reasons clarifying aspects of an earlier medical negligence judgment arising from treatment provided at a hospital and by several physicians.

The court clarified that the action was dismissed against one physician and the hospital.

The court also clarified the appearance of additional defence counsel for two of the remaining physician defendants.

The reasons supplement the earlier judgment and resolve ambiguity in the disposition and counsel record.

The plaintiff sustained bilateral wrist fractures after a slip and fall and was treated at the defendant hospital.

The defendant doctors reduced the fractures and applied plaster splints.

The plaintiff subsequently developed a full thickness burn on her right arm, which she alleged was caused by the negligent application of the cast or a failure to properly diagnose and treat the injury.

The court found that the defendant doctors met the standard of care in their treatment and that the burn was an unfortunate, rare, and unforeseeable complication of the exothermic reaction from the plaster.

The action for medical malpractice was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

Following a 17‑day commercial trial in which the plaintiff obtained judgment for specific performance and damages exceeding its earlier settlement offer, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff relied on Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that a written settlement offer transmitted by email triggered substantial indemnity costs consequences.

The court held that the email constituted a valid Rule 49 offer notwithstanding the “without prejudice” designation and rejected the defendants’ argument that such wording removed the offer from Rule 49.

In assessing quantum, the court applied the principles under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, emphasizing reasonableness rather than strict adherence to actual legal fees.

The court fixed costs at a lump sum reflecting partial and substantial indemnity principles and adjustments for conduct that lengthened the proceedings.

The plaintiff and defendants entered into an Option Agreement for the purchase and sale of a retro-fitted self-storage facility.

The plaintiff exercised a 'Put' option requiring the defendants to purchase the property at an appraised value.

The defendants refused to close, alleging the appraisal contained a manifest error and that the roof was defective, breaching a warranty.

The court found no manifest error in the appraisal and that the roof issues were maintenance problems which the defendants, as property managers, had failed to address.

The court granted specific performance of the sale at the appraised value of $7.3 million and awarded the plaintiff $728,080.05 in carrying costs.

Following the dismissal of an action on a summary judgment application, the court addressed the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendant sought recovery of legal fees and disbursements after an eight‑day hearing in which the self‑represented plaintiffs participated with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered the complexity of the proceeding, the conduct of the parties, and the importance of the issues.

Although the plaintiffs prolonged the proceeding and made unfair allegations against the defendant, the circumstances did not justify substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were therefore assessed on a partial indemnity basis with reasonable hourly rates and disbursements accepted.

The defendant solicitor moved for summary judgment dismissing a legal malpractice action brought by former clients arising from a motor vehicle accident claim.

The plaintiffs alleged the solicitor failed to pursue Statutory Accident Benefits (SABS), compromised tort claims, and improperly structured litigation relating to an unidentified driver accident.

The court held that the evidentiary record demonstrated no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiffs produced no evidence establishing entitlement to the alleged benefits or that the solicitor’s conduct caused any loss.

Applying the enhanced summary judgment framework under Rule 20 and the “full appreciation” test articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court concluded the claims were without merit and could be resolved on the motion.

Following dismissal of an application alleging that a municipality and its mayor and councillors conspired in bad faith to block a bridge expansion project through heritage and demolition control by-laws, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found the allegations of conspiracy, illegality, and bad faith against the municipal defendants to be entirely without merit and emphasized that unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty justify elevated costs.

Applying the principles in s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded substantial full indemnity costs to the successful municipal respondents and individual councillors, subject to proportionality considerations reflecting differing levels of participation.

The court held that both the applicants and the Canadian Transit Company—though formally a respondent but aligned with the applicants—were jointly and severally responsible for the costs award.

A contractor sought to enforce lien and related claims against a land vendor after a hotel purchaser defaulted on payment for servicing work on the parcel to be sold.

The court held the vendor was not an owner within sections 1.1 or 18 of the Construction Lien Act for the impugned work, finding no request, privity, consent, or joint/common ownership status that would ground liability.

Claims in unjust enrichment and quantum meruit were rejected because the deprivation flowed from the purchaser’s contractual breach and no corresponding enrichment by the vendor was established.

The court found the contractor’s proven damages remained those already reflected in judgments against the purchaser.

The action was dismissed with costs, but the contractor was found entitled to a lien against the purchaser’s $25,000 deposit held by the vendor.