Robert E. Houston

The plaintiff retained new counsel shortly before trial and brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim, conduct further discovery, and file an expert report, despite the action having been set down for trial.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed amendments did not add new causes of action and that the defendants would not suffer irremediable prejudice.

The court also permitted further discovery, noting that the recent production of audited financial statements justified the plaintiff's change in strategy.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recover a $340,000 loan secured by a second mortgage on the defendants' home.

The defendants argued the interest rate was ambiguous, the transaction was unconscionable, and one defendant lacked independent legal advice.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no evidence that the loan was excessive or unconscionable, and noting the defendants were represented by counsel during the transaction.

The plaintiff sued an accounting firm and a lawyer for professional negligence relating to the preparation and implementation of a family trust for tax planning purposes.

The defendants and a third-party lawyer brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that neither the lawyer nor the accounting firm were retained to form the trust or prepare the trust deed.

The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's claims, which consequently dismissed the third-party claims for contribution and indemnity.

The appellant police officer was dismissed for unsatisfactory work performance after a hearing officer found the police service's ad hoc performance evaluation procedures were sufficient despite deviating from mandatory policies.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the officer's appeal, finding the strict application of the performance review policies was a mandatory precondition under O. Reg. 268/10.

The Divisional Court set aside the Commission's decision on judicial review.

The Court of Appeal allowed the officer's appeal and restored the Commission's decision, holding that the Commission's interpretation of the regulation was reasonable and entitled to deference.

Following a summary judgment motion and mini‑trial under Rule 20.04(2.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure concerning whether the moving defendants possessed a contractual right of indemnity against subcontractor defendants, the court had previously dismissed the indemnity claim.

The remaining issue concerned the costs of the mini‑trial and related steps.

Applying s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, the court held that the moving defendants unnecessarily prolonged the litigation, failed to meaningfully engage in settlement efforts, and advanced an indemnity theory unsupported by evidence.

The conduct justified a costs award on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving defendants were ordered to pay substantial indemnity costs to both the plaintiffs and the subcontractor defendants.

On a rule 20.04(2.2) mini-trial, the moving defendants sought a declaration that an implied oral contract with a blasting contractor contained a right of indemnity arising from a quarry fly rock incident.

The court held that while the evidence showed a long-standing business relationship and shared expectations about operational responsibility and safety, it did not establish any oral or implied agreement to indemnify.

Applying the implied terms jurisprudence, the court found such a term was not necessary for business efficacy and failed the officious bystander test.

The indemnity claim was dismissed, and the matter was left to proceed to trial on remaining issues.

The Ottawa Police Services applied for judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, which had reinstated a police officer previously dismissed for unsatisfactory work performance.

The Commission had found that the police service failed to strictly follow its established procedures under O. Reg. 268/10 before initiating the complaint.

The Divisional Court (majority) held that the Commission's strict interpretation of the regulation was unreasonable, finding that the police service's extensive ad hoc efforts to assist the officer substantially complied with the statutory requirements.

The application for judicial review was granted, the Commission's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted.

The respondent farmer was injured when his uninsured all-terrain vehicle (ATV) was struck from behind by a truck on a public road.

He sued the truck driver, the truck owner, and his own insurer for damages and statutory accident benefits.

The motion judge found the ATV was a 'self-propelled implement of husbandry' exempt from compulsory insurance.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the ATV was an off-road vehicle that required insurance when operated on a public road.

Consequently, the respondent's action was statute-barred and his claim for statutory accident benefits was foreclosed.

The plaintiffs sued the quarry owner (Miller Group) and the blasting operator (Sernoskies) for damages caused by a fly rock incident.

The plaintiffs and the operator entered into a Pierringer settlement agreement, releasing the operator and restricting claims against the owner to several liability.

The owner cross-claimed against the operator, alleging an implied indemnity agreement.

The motion judge dismissed the owner's cross-claim and its motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the owner's appeal, finding the motion judge erred by failing to address the threshold issue of whether an implied indemnity agreement existed, which could eliminate the owner's liability entirely.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for determination.

Following dismissal of the action for delay, the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs based on allegations of fraud made against them and the plaintiff’s delay in prosecuting the action.

The court rejected the argument that the action itself constituted an abuse of process merely because a prior action existed, noting the claims were not identical and the matter had not been decided on its merits.

However, the court found the plaintiff’s delay in prosecuting the action was contumelious, inexcusable, and unexplained, which justified an elevated costs award.

Substantial indemnity costs were therefore awarded to the defendants despite the absence of a trial on the merits.

The court also noted that while a Rule 49 offer had been served, the award of substantial indemnity costs made it unnecessary to determine whether that offer independently justified enhanced costs.

Following the dismissal of summary judgment motions brought by the defendants, the plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis for successfully defending the motions.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including success, complexity, proportionality, and the conduct of the parties.

While the defendants’ motions were brought reasonably and with the objective of shortening the proceedings, the plaintiff was substantially successful in resisting them, though some issues remained for trial.

The court concluded that costs should be fixed immediately rather than deferred to the trial judge.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s action for delay and failure to comply with a case conference order requiring answers to written discovery questions.

The court considered the principles governing dismissal for delay under Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and sanctions for failure to comply with interlocutory orders under Rule 60.12.

The plaintiff failed to provide responding motion materials, failed to comply with a court-ordered timetable, and delayed approximately 21 months in responding to written discovery questions.

The court found the delay inexcusable and contumelious and held that the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice arising from delay after the limitation period.

The action against the moving defendants was dismissed with costs.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action regarding a right of first refusal on a quarry property.

The plaintiff had operated the quarry under a 1991 agreement that expired in 2006, but continued to pay rent.

The court found the agreement was a lease that renewed on a year-to-year basis.

However, the court held that whether the right of first refusal also renewed, and whether a binding agreement of purchase and sale was formed, were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The defendants' motions for summary judgment were dismissed and an expedited trial was ordered.

The applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision upholding his dismissal for discreditable conduct after he assaulted four officers.

He argued the Commission failed to consider the duty to accommodate his alleged disabilities, including alcohol addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence that his conditions rendered him unable to perform his essential duties, and concluded the penalty of dismissal was reasonable.

The plaintiff was required to show cause at a status hearing why its action for fraudulent conveyance should not be dismissed for delay.

The defendants sought dismissal, arguing the plaintiff took no steps for extended periods.

The Master found that while a 12-month delay was unexplained, the plaintiff had been actively pursuing the action against another defendant.

Finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants, the Master declined to dismiss the action and ordered a timetable for next steps.

The appellant's widow's pension was terminated upon her remarriage in 1984, prior to the coming into force of the equality rights provision of the Charter.

She brought an action in 2000 seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality and personal remedies including reinstatement of her pension and damages.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while her claim for a declaration of invalidity could proceed, her claims for personal relief were statute-barred.

The cause of action arose on April 17, 1985, when section 15 of the Charter came into effect, and the six-year limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act applied to bar her personal claims.

The Crown applied for leave to appeal a trial judge's dismissal of a motion for a mistrial in a manslaughter case.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the application for leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted the motion to quash, holding that it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal at this stage of the proceedings.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the possession of a lot, claiming adverse possession.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the appellant's possession of the property was by virtue of a lease.

Consequently, the appellant did not hold the property adversely to the respondent.

Appeal concerning whether employees of an intraprovincial Alberta short line railway carrying grain to a national railway fell under federal or provincial labour jurisdiction.

The majority held the railway was neither itself an interprovincial undertaking nor sufficiently integrated with a core federal undertaking under the functional integration analysis from the labour jurisdiction jurisprudence.

Physical connection, commercial dependence, and participation in a federally regulated grain transport system were insufficient to constitutionalize the undertaking as federal.

The appeal was allowed, the constitutional question was answered in the negative, and provincial labour jurisdiction applied.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.