Robert N. Beaudoin

The court, on its own initiative, considered dismissing the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure for being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Despite notice being given to the plaintiff, no written submissions were received within the prescribed 15-day period.

Consequently, the action was dismissed.

The parties sought costs for a motion where the applicant sought a change in exchange time for their daughter and the respondent sought leave to abridge timelines for an expert report and an increase in child support.

The court found that success on the motion was divided, as the respondent was unreasonable on the exchange time issue but the applicant should have recognized an increase in child support was inevitable.

The court declined to make an order for costs in favour of either party.

The Superior Court of Justice considered a requisition under Rule 2.1.01(6) to review the plaintiff's statement of claim for being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, M.S. (Manorama Sennek), sued the defendant lawyers for their representation of a condominium corporation in other proceedings, alleging disclosure of identity and seeking various declarations and substantial damages.

The court found insufficient factual pleading for most claims and noted the plaintiff's history of litigation, including a prior order for a mental capacity assessment in related cases.

The court ordered notice to the plaintiff regarding the potential dismissal of the action, stayed the action, and restricted further filings pending the Rule 2.1 hearing.

The applicant sought immediate implementation of custody and access assessment recommendations, including a change to primary residence with the mother and alternate weekend access for the father.

The respondent opposed, arguing the recommendations were contentious and the existing shared parenting arrangement, in place for a year, should be maintained until trial.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the proposed changes were significant, the applicant's affidavits were problematic, and the assessor's report was contentious and required cross-examination at trial.

The court emphasized that interim implementation of assessment reports should be discouraged, especially when there are serious credibility issues and a hotly contested factual record.

The applicants, Andrew Pierre Makoundi (a minor represented by his litigation guardian Bruno Makoundi) and Bruno Makoundi, brought a motion to annul a settlement agreement reached in December 2013.

The respondents, Lycée Claudel and its employees, opposed the annulment and sought court approval (homologation) of the settlement and dismissal of the applicants' actions.

The court dismissed the applicants' motion to annul, finding no evidence of mental incapacity, no applicability of the Charter to the private institution, and that allegations of undue influence were directed at former counsel.

The court granted the respondents' request to homologate the settlement, exercising its discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to dispense with certain procedural requirements (Rule 7.08 affidavits) in the interest of justice, given the applicants' conduct.

The court ordered the payment of $5,000 to the applicants' former counsel as per the settlement.

This decision addresses costs following two motions where the Bank of Montreal and Surgeson Carson Associates, Inc. (the Receiver) successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing claims by Jean-Luc Cardinal, Linda Cardinal, The Estate of Raymond Cardinal, and Ferme Lanidrac (the Borrowers), and successfully defended the Borrowers' motion to set aside a consent judgment.

The Bank and Receiver sought substantial indemnity costs, citing the complexity, importance, and unfounded allegations of fraud and abuse of process made by the Borrowers.

The Borrowers argued for partial indemnity costs, claiming shared success on a legal test and that the defendants' evidence was excessive.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the Bank ($110,000) and the Receiver ($50,000), finding the Borrowers' conduct in re-litigating settled claims and making serious, unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty warranted higher costs, despite acknowledging minor success on a legal argument.

The defendant brought a request under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's statement of claim, alleging it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that despite the statement of claim leaving much to be desired, it could not be dismissed solely based on a review of the pleading, as there might be an arguable case.

The defendant's request to dismiss the proceeding was denied, and the court advised the defendant to seek other appropriate relief under the Rules.

The Defendant's counsel requested a referral under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to consider dismissing the action.

The court declined to apply the attenuated procedures of Rule 2.1, noting that a previous judicial determination had already established an "arguable case" in the matter.

The Defendant was directed to seek other relief under appropriate provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant sought to enforce a foreign Letter of Request for Judicial Assistance by requesting oral examination of a respondent's representative.

The request for oral examination was dismissed, though the respondent had previously agreed to produce documents.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, arguing that as a stranger to the foreign litigation, it should not bear costs for successfully opposing the request.

The applicant argued for divided success and lower costs.

The court found the respondent wholly successful in opposing the oral examination and awarded full indemnity costs of $13,926.31.

This application concerned the enforcement of a Letter of Request for Judicial Assistance from a Florida court, seeking an oral examination of a representative from the National Gallery of Canada (NGC) regarding the ownership of Monet paintings by Frederic Bouin, who was involved in matrimonial litigation with the applicant.

The NGC had previously produced documents but opposed the oral examination.

The court applied a six-factor test for enforcing letters rogatory, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the sought-after examination evidence was relevant, necessary, or not otherwise obtainable, as Mr. Bouin himself was available for examination in the US proceedings.

Consequently, the court declined to order the oral examination.

The court issued an amended endorsement concerning the appointment of a psychologist for a family assessment under section 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Initially, the parties could not agree on an assessor, leading to submissions on proposed candidates.

One party alleged parental alienation and proposed a specific psychologist, while the other party alleged domestic violence and proposed a different psychologist, raising concerns about the first psychologist's potential bias due to their involvement with parental alienation concepts.

The original decision was based on information later found to be untrue.

Subsequently, the parties reached an agreement on an alternative assessor, rendering the court's prior determination on the initial choice moot.

The endorsement was amended to reflect this development and remove references to the now-moot appointment.

The respondent mother sought costs after successfully defending the applicant father's motion for summer access.

The mother's offer to settle was identical to the court's order.

The court applied Rule 18(14.5) of the Family Law Rules, finding the mother enjoyed complete success and her offer was reasonable.

While the father attempted to negotiate, his offer was deemed unreasonable.

The court awarded the mother $9,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements, declining to award costs for a case conference attendance.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order from Justice Kershman, which mandated a mental capacity assessment under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The original order was prompted by concerns regarding the applicant's ability to conduct litigation, stemming from perceived bizarre behaviours related to identity, numerous complaints against opposing counsel, and disproportionate legal costs incurred by the respondent.

The applicant argued procedural errors and substantive issues, including a lack of prior notice for the motion and a failure to consider privacy expectations.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions on principles of judicial discretion and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's discretionary decision.

The court rendered a decision on costs following a six-week jury trial.

The plaintiff, Frank D’Addario, was wholly unsuccessful in his claim for malicious prosecution against Betty Smith and Chris Napior.

Betty Smith's counterclaim for sexual assault was dismissed, while Chris Napior was awarded $25,000 in damages for defamation against Frank and Ferne D’Addario.

The court considered the results obtained at trial, abandoned claims, and Rule 49 offers to settle.

It awarded Betty Smith and Chris Napior $75,000 plus HST for defending abandoned claims, $5,000 plus HST for a pre-trial motion, and Chris Napior an additional $55,000 plus HST and $4,000 in disbursements for his successful defamation claim, after finding elements of over-lawyering and excessive billing in the initial costs submission.

The court, acting on a requisition from the Defendant, reviewed the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Statement of Claim, seeking $5,000,000 in damages, was found to lack a recognizable cause of action and proper pleading, appearing frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court ordered the Registrar to issue a Form 2.1A notice to the Plaintiff regarding the potential dismissal of the action, stayed the action pursuant to section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, and restricted further filings pending a written hearing under Rule 2.1.

The applicants appealed a Master's order dismissing their action.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the appeal was brought in the wrong court, as appeals from a case management master's final order lie to the Divisional Court.

The court also determined that Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for dismissal of vexatious or frivolous proceedings, does not apply to appeals.

The appeal was effectively dismissed due to procedural impropriety.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the law firm that successfully represented the mother of his child in prior family court proceedings.

The plaintiff sought $750,000 in damages and an order banning the firm from practicing law, having previously failed to overturn the child support order and having a prior civil action against the mother stayed as an abuse of process.

The court found the action appeared frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and directed the Registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, staying the action pending a written hearing.

The applicant father sought to amend a separation agreement to obtain joint custody and specific summer access for his two daughters.

The respondent mother opposed, proposing an alternative access schedule based on the children's best interests, citing ongoing conflict and the father's alleged attempts to involve the children in disputes.

The court dismissed the father's motion for summer access, finding his request was based on a sense of entitlement rather than the children's best interests, and adopted the mother's liberal access proposal.

The court also renewed a request for the Office of the Children's Lawyer to become involved.

This endorsement from a Trial Management Conference outlines the procedural orders made to schedule the trial and subsequent pre-trial steps.

The trial is scheduled for October 16, 2017, for six to eight weeks.

Orders include deadlines for circulating a draft Statement of Defence, cross-examination of a witness, a further mediation, and the delivery of expert reports on solicitor negligence and damages by both the plaintiff and defendants.

A further Trial Management Conference is adjourned to April 10, 2017, to review the status.

This trial involved two consolidated actions: a construction lien claim by S & L Mechanical for unpaid invoices and a breach of trust claim against Robert Dompierre, the former president of Lexus Mechanical Inc. The court found that S & L's construction lien was not registered in a timely manner and had expired.

The breach of trust claim against Dompierre was also dismissed as it was commenced outside the two-year limitation period, as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the loss much earlier.

However, the court determined the amounts owing to S & L from Lexus Mechanical Inc. (which was bankrupt but continued by order) and allowed certain set-offs claimed by Lexus for incomplete work by S & L. Ultimately, S & L was awarded a net judgment against Lexus Mechanical Inc.