Robin Moodie

The self-represented moving party brought a contempt motion under Rule 60.11 against several parties, alleging they knowingly relied on a vacated writ of execution despite a prior order setting aside the underlying default judgment.

The court denied the moving party's adjournment request after applying the relevant factors, finding she had ample time to file evidence and retain counsel.

On the merits, the motion failed because the order alleged to have been breached did not require the responding parties to do or refrain from doing anything, and no evidence of a deliberate and wilful breach was tendered.

The motion was dismissed with full indemnity costs.

The appellants commenced an action against the respondent, a personal injury lawyer, for damages arising from the non-payment of referral fees allegedly owed under an oral contract spanning 1984 to 2018.

The appellants claimed entitlement to 10% of gross settlements or awards on over 130 referred lawsuits.

The respondent denied the existence of any contract and brought a summary judgment motion relying on denial of contract, alleged illegality, and limitation defences.

The motion judge found genuine issues requiring trial regarding contract existence and legality but granted partial summary judgment on limitation grounds, dismissing claims for lawsuits settling before December 10, 2017.

The appellants appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in characterizing the contract and in failing to recognize that the cause of action did not arise until the relationship ended in 2018.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly determined that the cause of action accrued when each referred lawsuit settled and payment was not made, regardless of whether the full extent of damages was known.

The appellants, Orllyn Loney and Yvonne Prouty, appealed the dismissal of their motion to amend their statement of claim to correctly name the driver and owner of a tractor-trailer (Michael George Alexander Mills and 564242 Ontario Limited, also known as Liftlock) as defendants, replacing "John Doe" and "ABC Corporation".

The motion was brought almost ten years after the accident and over three years after the action was set down for trial.

The motion judge denied leave, finding no sudden change in circumstances and non-compensable prejudice due to the lengthy, unexplained delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in her exercise of discretion.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to limitation periods and the actual prejudice caused by the delay, including the loss of timely discovery opportunities for the proposed defendants.

The defendant, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, brought a motion to strike two Requests to Admit (RTAs) or, in the alternative, to withdraw deemed admissions that arose from their failure to respond to the RTAs.

The plaintiff argued that the non-response was deliberate and part of a pattern of uncooperative litigation conduct.

The court found the RTAs were not an abuse of process but allowed the withdrawal of admissions, finding a reasonable explanation (inadvertence) and no uncompensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

Despite the defendant's success on the motion, the court deprived them of costs due to their overall pattern of non-responsiveness and lack of cooperation, sanctioning their litigation conduct.

The plaintiff litigation loan company moved for summary judgment against the defendant lawyer for outstanding loans made to his former law firm.

The loans were intended to fund client litigation, but another partner of the firm had forged client signatures and misappropriated the funds before passing away.

The defendant lawyer took no position on the motion and was currently in bankruptcy, though the stay of proceedings had been lifted.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the defendant liable for the firm's debts under the Partnerships Act despite his lack of involvement in the fraudulent acts.

The self-represented plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants, who were opposing counsel and parties in a separate solicitors' negligence action, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, conflict of interest, and other improprieties.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that no duty of care is owed to an opposing party during litigation, and therefore the claim raised no genuine issue for trial and constituted an abuse of process.