Richard Simmons

Following the plaintiff's successful motion and the dismissal of the defendants' motion, the court determined the costs payable to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought costs on a full indemnity basis due to the egregious and delaying conduct of the defendant.

The court found that the defendant's conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding and awarded costs of $11,900, payable personally by the defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion to fix costs from previous motions after the trial judge retired, to vary a previous judgment to make funds payable directly to her, and to recover collection costs and costs thrown away.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to terminate a garnishment, arguing the previous judgment was fully satisfied.

The court found the previous judgment was not fully satisfied and dismissed the defendant's motion.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that no limitation period applies to enforcing court orders for costs, and that Rule 59.06 and the court's inherent jurisdiction allowed it to fix the costs of the previous motions.

The defendant was ordered to pay $117,067.49.

The applicant corporation brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged breach of its section 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The matter arose from a serious workplace injury in 2013.

An information was sworn in June 2014, and the first trial commenced in April 2016 but was stayed in January 2018 on Charter grounds.

The Crown appealed and obtained a retrial order in March 2019.

The court found that the retrial delay of 10 months and 15 days (after excluding defence delay) was unreasonable in the context of a retrial that should have been prioritized.

The court granted the stay of proceedings, finding that institutional delay was the primary cause of the violation of the accused's right to trial within a reasonable time.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interim injunction against a former employee and his new competing business, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition through the use of confidential information and client solicitation.

The court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the breach of fiduciary duty.

However, the motion was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, as the alleged loss of business could not be directly attributed to the defendants and the plaintiffs delayed 11 months in bringing the motion.

The plaintiff, terminated after 9 years of employment, sought summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages, arguing that AVL Manufacturing Inc. and its related corporate entities (VDC Manufacturing Inc., Hamilton Metalworks Inc., and ECO-H Technologies Inc.) constituted a common employer.

The court found insufficient evidence to establish a common employer relationship, noting the formal separation in corporate structures and dealings with the plaintiff, despite shared ownership and directors.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The applicant, HMI, brought a motion to refer a consolidated construction lien action, involving seventeen liens totaling over $42 million, to a single private arbitration and to stay the court proceedings.

The consolidated action was divided into three streams (A, B, C) based on contractual relationships.

The motion was opposed by various lien claimants and other parties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a consolidated arbitration could not be ordered due to significant conflicts in arbitration clauses across the different contracts, the inclusion of third parties who had not consented to arbitration, the failure to follow contractual dispute resolution protocols (including mediation), and potential for increased costs and delays for some parties.

The court emphasized the consensual nature of arbitration and declined to impose non-consensual amendments to contracts or stay the court action.

Following a successful motion under Rules 20 and 21 resulting in the summary dismissal of an action, the moving defendants sought costs against the plaintiff.

The court considered the complexity of the issues, including arguments under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 and the Health Professions Procedural Code concerning the regulatory authority of the professional college.

The court found the hours and rates of counsel generally reasonable but reduced the bill to account for duplication between two lawyers and travel time.

Partial indemnity costs were fixed with additional HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the total amount within 30 days.

The moving parties sought to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b), dismiss the action as an abuse of process under Rule 21.01(3)(d), or obtain summary judgment under Rule 20.

The claim alleged that a medical regulatory body conducted a bad‑faith investigation into physicians working at the plaintiff’s clinic, causing economic loss.

The court held the pleading was sufficient to allege misfeasance in public office, though not intentional interference with economic relations.

However, on the summary judgment record the plaintiff produced virtually no evidence establishing unlawful conduct or bad faith.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the action.