Robyrt Hawyrden Regan

At a case conference, the court addressed the self-represented plaintiff's failure to deliver a Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim combining allegations from three separate proceedings by the previously ordered deadline.

The plaintiff delivered a 130-page draft just prior to the conference that merely expanded one proceeding rather than combining them.

The court granted a final extension to May 6, 2016, to deliver the combined pleading, after which the defendants may bring motions for summary judgment or to strike.

Costs of the attendance were awarded to the defendants in the cause due to the plaintiff's delay.

The self-represented plaintiff failed to comply with a court order to deliver a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim by the specified deadline.

The defendants subsequently sought to schedule a motion to strike the pleadings.

The case management judge scheduled an in-person case conference to address the breach.

The plaintiff requested an adjournment due to a newly discovered scheduling conflict in Small Claims Court.

The court denied the adjournment, ordering the case conference to proceed as scheduled and noting that the Superior Court proceedings should take priority.

At a case conference, the court noted that the self-represented plaintiff had commenced three separate actions with overlapping defendants and identical material facts, potentially constituting an abuse of process.

To avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, the court ordered the plaintiff to deliver a single Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim consolidating all allegations and defendants into one pleading, and set a timetable for the defendants to respond or bring motions to strike.

The appellant was successful in appealing a Small Claims Court judgment and sought costs of $3,329.35.

The respondent, who was self-represented, submitted a brief email claiming $395.50 for limited legal advice.

The court found the appellant's claimed costs exceeded the principle of proportionality, as they represented over 30% of the $10,000 judgment in issue.

Costs were awarded to the appellant in the fixed amount of $2,000 inclusive of HST.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay $10,000 to the respondent.

The respondent claimed the money was a loan, while the appellant claimed it was an investment in a joint business venture.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the deputy justice had improperly reversed the burden of proof by requiring the appellant to prove the money was an investment rather than requiring the respondent to prove it was a loan.

Following the abandonment of a motion by the bankrupt seeking annulment of her bankruptcy, secured creditors sought substantial indemnity costs against the bankrupt, her husband, and her counsel.

The court held that under Rule 37.09(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, responding parties are presumptively entitled to costs where a motion is abandoned unless good cause exists to order otherwise.

No such cause was established, as the evidence showed the motion lacked merit and was withdrawn after cross‑examination revealed the evidence would not support annulment.

However, the court declined to impose costs against the husband or counsel, finding insufficient evidence that they caused unnecessary costs or acted improperly.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded against the bankrupt in amounts the court found fair and proportionate.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment and permit the filing of a Statement of Defence.

The court applied the three-part test for setting aside default judgment—promptness, a plausible explanation for the default, and the existence of an arguable defence.

The defendants attributed their failure to file a defence to misconduct and negligence by their former solicitor, including failing to file the drafted defence and misleading the defendants regarding its status.

The court held that the motion was brought promptly by new counsel and that the defendants had established a plausible explanation and an arguable defence on the merits.

The default judgment was set aside and the noting in default vacated, with costs of the motion ordered personally against the defendants’ former solicitor under Rule 57.07(1)(c).

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to have the defendants found in contempt of court for failing to comply with several court orders related to examinations in aid of execution and other litigation obligations.

The defendants argued that their failures were attributable to the conduct and advice of their former solicitor and a disbarred lawyer assisting him.

The court held that while parties are generally responsible for their own conduct in litigation, the circumstances raised sufficient doubt regarding the defendants’ culpable intent.

Given the high onus required to establish contempt of court, the court declined to make a contempt finding.

The court further ordered that there would be no costs of the contempt motion.