Robert B. Macdonald

The plaintiff sought to appeal an associate judge's order denying her leave to amend her statement of claim in an action for breach of contract and theft of intellectual property.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's notice of appeal, factum, and written submissions, finding them to be rambling, incoherent, and replete with conspiracy theories and attacks on the judiciary and third parties.

The court concluded that the appeal was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appeal was dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1.02, and the plaintiff was prohibited from bringing further motions without leave under Rule 37.16.

Following the plaintiff's successful motion regarding a commercial lease renewal, the court received written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $34,339.46, arguing the defendant's conduct was unreasonable and high-handed.

The defendant argued each party should bear its own costs or that partial indemnity costs should be significantly reduced.

The court found the defendant's conduct was not so egregious as to warrant substantial indemnity costs and awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff tenant brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that it validly exercised its option to renew a commercial lease for a school premises.

The defendant landlord brought a cross-motion seeking a declaration that the lease was not validly renewed.

The court found that partial summary judgment was appropriate and held that the tenant had provided explicit and unequivocal written notice of its intention to renew via email.

The court also found that the landlord had waived strict compliance with the lease's notice delivery requirements by communicating via email, and alternatively, the tenant would be entitled to relief from forfeiture.

The plaintiff's motion was granted and the lease was declared extended to August 31, 2025.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking $84,725.09 to reconcile a final profit split under a magazine publishing agreement that ended mid-year in 2019.

The agreement required the defendant to provide a minimum of $150,000 in advertising revenue annually, with the first $150,000 of net profit paid to the defendant reflecting this contribution.

Because only one edition was published in 2019, the defendant contributed only $62,625 in ad revenue but argued it was still entitled to the full $150,000 profit priority.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation and found that the profit priority was linked to the actual ad revenue contributed.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

In the penalty phase of a civil contempt motion, the plaintiff sought to strike the defendants' pleadings, punitive damages, fines, and costs after the defendants were found to have intentionally failed to produce sales invoices and emails, and swore a false affidavit of documents.

The court declined to strike the pleadings or award punitive damages, noting the documents were eventually produced.

Instead, the court ordered the defendants to pay fines of $7,500 and $5,000 to the plaintiff, costs thrown away of approximately $20,000, and the costs of the contempt motion on a full indemnity basis.

The plaintiff purchased an industrial property that was later discovered to be contaminated with PCBs.

The plaintiff sued the vendor and related companies for fraud, alleging they concealed the contamination.

After several years of litigation, the plaintiff moved to discontinue its fraud action and counterclaim.

The defendants opposed, seeking dismissal and costs on a full indemnity scale.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to discontinue the action on terms that prevent future litigation on the same causes of action.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs fixed at $516,395.23 on a substantial indemnity scale, finding that the fraud allegations were unsubstantiated but not intentionally misleading.

Following a three‑day trial in which the plaintiff’s claim for $68,506.25 was dismissed, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted because there was no Rule 49 offer triggering such consequences and no reprehensible conduct by the opposing party.

The court also adjusted the claimed partial indemnity rate, finding that a 67% recovery of actual counsel rates was excessive and that a rate approximating 60% of substantial indemnity was more typical.

Applying the Rule 57.01 factors, including a refused settlement offer, the court awarded a global costs amount reflecting fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage sued the defendant for a commission of $68,506.25 under a Buyer Representation Agreement (BRA) after the defendant purchased a home using another brokerage.

The court found that the BRA had been repudiated by the defendant and that the plaintiff accepted the repudiation by its conduct in failing to provide further services.

Alternatively, the plaintiff repudiated the agreement by failing to assist the defendant in locating a home, which the defendant accepted.

The claim was dismissed.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to transfer her Small Claims Court action against a home builder to the Superior Court of Justice, amend her claim to increase damages, and add a flooring contractor as a defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had deliberately chosen the Small Claims Court forum and that there were no new facts to justify a transfer.

Furthermore, the court held that the proposed new claims and the claim against the new defendant were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiff had knowledge of the defects more than two years before seeking to amend her claim.