Robert B. Reid

This decision addresses the costs of a dismissed motion brought by the plaintiff, United Mennonite Home for the Aged, to amend its pleadings to name Dan Gordon in his personal capacity.

The defendant, Dan Gordon, was entirely successful in opposing the motion and sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendant, reducing the claimed amount by $1,000 due to the defendant's conduct unnecessarily lengthening the proceeding.

The court affirmed that success is a presumptive factor in costs awards and that a charitable organization's limited ability to pay is irrelevant when they initiated the motion.

The applicant brought an urgent motion to preserve assets pending equalization of net family property, alleging the respondent and his mother breached a consent order by encumbering a property and listing it for sale.

The court found no breach of the consent order as the charge was registered minutes before the order was made.

The court declined to order mortgage funds be paid into court but ordered an accounting of the funds, restricted the alienation of the property without notice, and directed that 50% of the respondent's project management fees be remitted to the Family Responsibility Office for support arrears.

The applicant brought a motion in a family law proceeding to add the respondent's mother as a party, compel oral questioning, obtain corporate disclosure, and secure a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) and preservation orders against certain properties.

The applicant alleged the respondent was dissipating assets and using his mother and her corporation to shield equity from equalization.

The court granted the requests to add the mother as a party, ordered oral questioning and disclosure, and issued a CPL against one property, finding a triable issue regarding the applicant's interest.

The request for a preservation order was dismissed as the properties were not legally owned by the respondent.

The defendants in a professional negligence action brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's current law firm as counsel of record.

The defendants argued that the law firm was in a conflict of interest because it had negotiated the settlement that the defendants alleged was improvident, and that a lawyer from the firm would be a necessary witness at trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the current counsel of record had fulfilled his duty to disclose the conflict and refer the plaintiff for independent legal advice.

The court also held that it was premature to remove the firm based on the potential for a lawyer to be called as a witness, as discoveries had not yet occurred.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the defendants' right to renew the motion at a later stage.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a successful application by 2516216 Ontario Ltd. o/a NUMBRS against AbleDocs Inc., where a judgment of $111,680.38 plus prejudgment interest was granted in favour of Numbrs.

The applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis to the date of an offer to settle and thereafter on a substantial indemnity basis, totaling $41,494.31.

The respondent argued for a denial or reduction of costs due to the applicant's counsel's aggressive conduct, including threats of personal claims against respondent's counsel.

The court found the applicant's counsel's actions inappropriate but not egregious enough to deny costs, ultimately awarding the applicant the full amount of costs claimed.

The applicant, 2516216 Ontario Ltd. o/a NUMBRS, brought an application for judgment seeking $111,680.38 for outstanding bookkeeping services provided to the respondent, AbleDocs Inc. AbleDocs admitted some amount was owing but disputed the total, alleging overbilling, potential negligence regarding US tax remittances (for which it intended to counterclaim), and that some invoices were statute-barred.

AbleDocs brought a motion to convert the application into an action due to alleged material facts in dispute.

The court dismissed AbleDocs' motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court determined that the contractual claim was straightforward, the negligence claim was discrete and could be pursued separately, and the limitation period argument was defeated by a valid tolling agreement and acknowledgement of debt.

Judgment was granted in favour of the applicant for the full amount claimed.

The defendant, Rogers Communications Canada Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff, Andrew Athanassiades's, claim for damages arising from alleged failure to provide internet service, intentional infliction of mental suffering, defamation, and breach of contract.

The court dismissed the claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering, finding no evidence of flagrant or outrageous conduct calculated to cause harm.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the defamation claim, necessitating oral evidence from both parties.

Further submissions were also required for the breach of contract claim to determine if a genuine issue for trial existed given the apparent mutual agreement to rescind the contract.

The applicant landlord sought vacant possession and damages from the respondents, a tenant and a related corporation.

The respondents brought a cross-application for damages and determination of rights under a settlement agreement.

The court found the landlord-tenant relationship had irretrievably broken down due to the tenant's admitted failure to pay rent, which constituted a fundamental breach of the lease.

The court granted the landlord a declaration that the lease was terminated and issued a writ of possession, delayed by 30 days.

However, due to significant factual disputes, credibility issues, and the potential need for expert evidence, the court converted all remaining claims for damages from both parties into a single action to proceed with fresh pleadings and examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff, Paul Wilson, sought costs following a successful summary judgment motion against Stephen McNeill and Cannabis Innovation Group Ltd. (CIG) for a loan, and an unsuccessful motion against Argentia Gold Corporation (AGC).

Wilson sought full indemnity costs from McNeill and CIG due to fraudulent misrepresentation.

AGC sought substantial indemnity costs from Wilson.

The court awarded Wilson partial indemnity costs from McNeill and CIG.

It also awarded AGC partial indemnity costs from Wilson, finding it reasonable for Wilson to have sued AGC given McNeill's role as CEO.

The court then issued a Bullock order, making McNeill and CIG responsible to Wilson for the costs he owed AGC, finding it fair given their actions led to AGC's involvement.

A Sanderson order was deemed inappropriate due to McNeill and CIG's financial resources.

The plaintiff, Paul Wilson, sought summary judgment against Stephen McNeill, Cannabis Innovation Group Ltd. (CIG), and Argentia Gold Corporation (AGC) for an unpaid $100,000 loan.

The court found that McNeill, as the directing mind of CIG, made fraudulent misrepresentations regarding AGC's financial projections, inventory, and valuation, which induced Wilson to make the loan to CIG.

The court granted summary judgment against CIG and pierced the corporate veil to hold McNeill personally liable due to the fraudulent conduct.

However, the claim against AGC was dismissed, as it was not a party to the loan agreement, and there was no evidence of unjust enrichment or oppressive corporate acts by AGC.

The plaintiff sought repayment of approximately $300,000 in alleged loans from the defendant.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, and alternatively sought leave to amend his statement of defence to withdraw certain admissions.

The court found that significant factual disputes, including the nature of communications between the parties (complicated by the plaintiff's deafness and English comprehension), created a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding when the claim was discovered and if a clear and unequivocal demand for repayment was made.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The motion for leave to amend the statement of defence was granted, as no non-compensable prejudice would result.

The plaintiffs sought costs of $13,736.49 on a full indemnity basis following a motion brought by the defendants regarding a power of sale and mortgage redemption.

The defendants had achieved partial success on the motion, securing a reimbursement of $11,700 for excess charges, but their claims of illegal possession were dismissed.

The court found that while the plaintiffs were contractually entitled to full indemnity costs for collection efforts, the divided success warranted a reduction.

The defendants were ordered to pay $10,000 in costs to the plaintiffs.

The respondent brought a motion seeking to enforce parenting time orders, alleging the applicant was alienating their daughter.

The motion was dismissed, as was the applicant's verbal request for a section 30 assessment.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $17,972.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $8,000 to the applicant, finding the respondent did not act unreasonably in bringing the motion and noting the applicant's divided success regarding the section 30 assessment.

The defendants (chargor and guarantor) brought a motion seeking a declaration that the plaintiff mortgagees illegally took possession of the mortgaged property and seeking a review of the fees charged to redeem the mortgage.

The court found that the plaintiffs legally and peaceably took possession of the unoccupied property after default, and complied with the notice provisions of the Mortgages Act.

However, the court disallowed $11,700 in repeated administrative and nonpayment fees charged by the plaintiffs, finding them to be an unenforceable penalty contrary to section 8 of the Interest Act, and ordered reimbursement to the defendants.

The respondent father brought a motion to enforce existing shared parenting orders and for makeup time, alleging the applicant mother was alienating their 14-year-old daughter, who refused to attend parenting time.

The daughter suffered from severe anxiety and had threatened suicide.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it could not determine on untested affidavit evidence whether the mother was responsible for the non-compliance or whether forcing compliance would be in the child's best interests given her mental health issues.

The mother's informal request for a section 30 assessment was also dismissed without prejudice.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded $80,229.56 for unpaid construction invoices, the court determined costs.

The plaintiff sought $51,490.63 based on an offer to settle for $100,000 plus $15,000 in costs.

The court conducted a 'mini-assessment' of costs to determine if the judgment was more favourable than the offer.

Finding that the judgment plus partial indemnity costs would exceed the $115,000 offer, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, totalling $51,490.63.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowner for unpaid invoices relating to the demolition and reconstruction of a house.

The parties had no written contract and disagreed on whether the arrangement was a fixed-price or cost-plus agreement.

The court found there was no meeting of the minds on price, and therefore no binding contract existed.

The plaintiff's claim was assessed on the basis of quantum meruit.

The court awarded the plaintiff compensation for unpaid labour and some expenses, but denied claims for storage, tool rentals, and markup on materials sourced directly by the defendant.

The defendant's counterclaim for overpayment and delay was dismissed, but a set-off was allowed for the cost of repairing defective pocket doors.

During a criminal trial involving multiple accused, the Crown brought a Khelawon application to admit the out-of-court statements of two deceased witnesses for the truth of their contents under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found that the unsworn, audio-recorded telephone statement of a former neighbour lacked both procedural and substantive reliability and was inadmissible.

However, the court admitted the video-recorded statement of a deceased complainant, finding sufficient procedural safeguards and substantive reliability corroborated by other witnesses to overcome hearsay dangers.

During a trial for sexual offences, the defence sought to cross-examine a complainant on alleged prior inconsistent statements recorded in notes made by Family and Children's Services workers, pursuant to s. 11 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Crown objected, arguing the notes were not verbatim statements.

The court ruled that the notes, being summaries written in the third person and not verified by the complainant, lacked the necessary reliability to be characterized as prior inconsistent statements under the Act.

The defence was permitted to cross-examine on the content of the interviews but could not use the notes as formal prior statements.

The plaintiff brought a professional negligence claim against his former lawyers, alleging they failed to secure appropriate funding for his catastrophic injuries.

The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff's subsequent lawyers recommended an improvident settlement, which was approved by the court.

The plaintiff moved to strike this defence, arguing issue estoppel applied to the court-approved settlement.

The defendants moved for disclosure of the privileged portions of the affidavit filed by the plaintiff's subsequent lawyers in support of the settlement.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it would be unfair to prevent the defendants from scrutinizing the settlement.

The court also ordered disclosure of the privileged affidavit portions, finding an implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege because the plaintiff's claim put the rationale for the settlement in issue.