Ronald F. Caza

The defendant, a retired tax lawyer suffering from a debilitating medical condition, brought a motion to be excused from oral examination for discovery and to proceed by written interrogatories instead.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that oral discovery was necessary given the allegations of professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and dishonesty.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the defendant's medical condition was serious, the evidence did not establish that oral discovery, if properly managed with accommodations such as short sessions and frequent breaks, would cause physical or psychological harm.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, the respondent municipality sought partial indemnity costs of $27,321.55.

The applicant argued for no costs or symbolic costs, asserting he acted as a public interest litigant regarding municipal workplace harassment obligations.

The court applied the criteria for public interest litigants and awarded the respondent symbolic costs fixed at $5,000.

The moving parties sought summary judgment in a shareholder oppression dispute involving a closely held home-building corporation, requesting dissolution, appointment of a receiver, and related declaratory relief.

The court held that the longstanding informal manner in which the corporation had operated formed part of the parties' reasonable expectations and that the impugned conduct, including deferred and retroactive salary payments, did not amount to oppression on the record before it.

The court found that one alleged director had not been validly elected, but that his conduct nevertheless did not constitute oppressive conduct.

Applying Rule 20 and the summary judgment framework, the court denied summary judgment, determined several factual and legal issues, remained seized, and directed further steps toward salary determinations, valuation, and a possible buyout or liquidation if no buyout occurred.

Le requérant, ancien maire et contribuable municipal, sollicitait un contrôle judiciaire, des déclarations et un mandamus relativement à une résolution municipale ayant maintenu le statu quo face à des plaintes de harcèlement au travail déposées contre un conseiller.

La cour a conclu que le différend n’était pas strictement théorique, mais que les réparations demandées n’auraient aucun effet pratique compte tenu de l’adoption subséquente d’une nouvelle résolution mandatant une enquête indépendante, du départ du conseiller visé du conseil et du litige civil déjà engagé par l’employé plaignant.

En appliquant les conditions du mandamus, la cour a jugé que la forme de l’enquête relevait d’un pouvoir discrétionnaire et que la municipalité n’avait pas agi de mauvaise foi en retenant une enquête confidentielle dans un contexte de litige.

La requête a été rejetée avec dépens à déterminer.

In an application under the Arbitration Act, 1991 to set aside or alternatively seek leave to appeal parts of an arbitral award, the respondent municipality brought a motion challenging the court's jurisdiction over the appeal aspect and seeking cross-examination on an affidavit filed by opposing counsel.

The court held that an arbitration clause providing that the arbitrator's decision would be final and binding and that there would be no appeal implicitly excluded any application for leave to appeal under s. 45(1).

The court refused to dismiss the jurisdiction motion for delay or defer it to the application judge, ordered the deponent to attend for cross-examination with relevant documentation, and awarded the moving party its $527.80 non-attendance expense.

The cross-motion to compel opposing counsel to attend for cross-examination was dismissed.

On a summary judgment motion in a commercial lease dispute, the moving party sought judgment on liability after the landlords purported to terminate a lease for delayed possession while pursuing a high-rise redevelopment.

The court held that a collateral oral agreement validly amended the lease to delay the commencement date, that the moving party had not taken possession within the meaning of the lease, and that the termination provision remained unavailable on the date relied upon.

The court further found that the landlords' invocation of the delayed possession clause was unreasonable and made in bad faith because the real reason for termination was the breakdown of negotiations over further amendments.

Summary judgment on liability for breach of lease was granted, with damages left for later determination.

The City of Ottawa appealed an arbitration award that found it breached a 2004 Minutes of Settlement with Coliseum Inc. regarding the relocation of Coliseum's dome operations from Frank Clair Stadium.

The arbitrator had awarded Coliseum $2,240,000 in damages.

The Superior Court of Justice granted leave to appeal, finding the arbitrator made extricable errors of law in interpreting the settlement agreement and in applying the doctrines of waiver and promissory estoppel.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the court held the arbitrator's interpretation was unreasonable and inconsistent with the facts.

The appeal was allowed and the arbitration award was set aside.

The applicants sought a stay of orders issued by the respondent municipality under the Building Code Act regarding their heritage buildings, which were in an unsafe condition.

The applicants wanted to demolish the buildings without complying with the heritage permit conditions.

The court applied the RJR-Macdonald test and dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in preserving heritage buildings and ensuring safety.

The plaintiffs brought a civil action in battery arising from a professional wrestling match in which the defendant intentionally cut the plaintiff with a razor blade immediately after cutting himself.

The court found that the defendant, who had Hepatitis‑C, transmitted the virus to the plaintiff through blood‑to‑blood contact.

As a result, the plaintiff lost a professional wrestling contract with a major wrestling organization and underwent painful medical treatments before ultimately being cured.

The court held the defendant liable for battery and awarded damages for pain and suffering, past income loss, and significant future income loss based on the lost opportunity to pursue a professional wrestling career.

Family members also received damages under the Family Law Act for loss of care, guidance, and companionship.

Following dismissal of a $15 million civil claim, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to the successful defendant.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs based on allegations of bad faith litigation conduct and a rejected Rule 49 settlement offer of $250,000.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity for the entire proceeding but applied Rule 49 principles, awarding partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The court also addressed the effect of a special fee arrangement between the defendant and its counsel, holding that costs cannot exceed the client’s actual obligation under s. 20(2) of the Solicitors Act.

Costs were fixed in accordance with the reasonable expectations of the parties and the scale of the litigation.

The moving party law firm brought a motion seeking to transfer the taxation of costs to Ottawa.

The court considered factors including where the legal work was performed, the residence of most witnesses, and the convenience and efficiency of conducting the taxation before bilingual certified assessors in Ottawa.

The court found that most relevant events and witnesses were located in Ottawa and that the law firm had suffered the alleged financial prejudice there.

Balancing these factors, the court held that transferring the taxation proceeding from London to Ottawa was in the interests of justice.

The responding parties were ordered to pay costs of the motion.

Parents brought an application alleging that the refusal to provide a door‑to‑door school bus stop for their children attending a French-language Catholic elementary school violated their rights under s. 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They sought an order compelling the school transportation consortium to provide a stop directly in front of their residence.

The court held that the consortium’s transportation decisions were subject to Charter scrutiny because the consortium exercised a governmental function delegated by school boards.

However, the applicants failed to demonstrate that the existing bus stops, located approximately 60 metres and 150 metres from the residence, created a meaningful barrier to access to French-language education.

The court concluded that the inconvenience of walking that distance did not constitute a denial of minority-language education rights under s. 23.

Following a multi‑day civil trial involving contractual disputes and a counterclaim, the successful defendants sought costs relying on multiple settlement offers made under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff argued the result was mixed and that each party should bear its own costs, emphasizing that the defendants’ counterclaim was ultimately found to be prescribed.

The court reviewed the governing costs factors under Rule 57 and the jurisprudence concerning settlement offers and proportionality.

The court held the defendants were the successful parties and that a reasonable settlement offer should have been accepted.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded against the plaintiff.

Les appelants ont contesté en appel la conclusion selon laquelle leurs lettres de démission du conseil d’administration d’une fondation étaient valides, plaidant l’influence indue et un complot visant la prise de contrôle de l’organisme.

La Cour d’appel a conclu que le juge des requêtes disposait de tous les faits pertinents, avait examiné les allégations soulevées et n’avait commis aucune erreur manifeste et dominante dans son appréciation factuelle.

La cour a aussi rejeté la demande d’autorisation d’interjeter appel de l’ordonnance de dépens.

Les dépens de l’appel ont été accordés aux intimés sur une base d’indemnité partielle.

Following the resolution of an application challenging a regulation after the respondents agreed to amend it, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs payable to the applicants.

The applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the litigation involved costs thrown away and abusive conduct by the respondents.

The court rejected both arguments, holding the matter resembled a typical settlement scenario and that the respondents had not acted unreasonably.

The court also rejected requests to exclude negotiation time and expert-related costs from the applicants’ bill of costs, but found the total amount claimed excessive.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded reduced costs on a partial indemnity basis.

On a Rule 21 motion, several defendant chicken processors sought to strike portions of a statement of claim alleging damages arising from regulatory changes affecting interprovincial chicken supply.

The plaintiff alleged that industry participants and a marketing board conspired to eliminate its interprovincial supply business, contrary to the Competition Act and through intentional economic interference, conspiracy, and expropriation without compensation.

The court applied the “plain and obvious” test and held that most claims disclosed a reasonable cause of action and should proceed, including claims under s.45 and s.36 of the Competition Act, conspiracy, intentional interference with economic relations, and punitive damages.

However, references to “expropriated calculated base” and related pleading paragraphs were struck because the alleged property interest was not properly pleaded.

A reference to the Agreement on Internal Trade was also struck for inadequate identification, with leave to amend.

A financial advisor sued his former business associate and the associate’s corporation for breach of contract following termination of their business arrangement.

The defendants alleged that the advisor breached an exclusivity clause by selling investment products of a competing financial institution outside the agreed distribution structure and brought a counterclaim for damages.

The court found that the advisor had violated the contractual clause prohibiting the transfer of business outside the firm and had also breached fiduciary obligations.

The defendants were therefore entitled to terminate the contract.

However, the counterclaim was dismissed as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because it was commenced outside the applicable limitation period.

The respondent property owner brought a motion to stay an earlier order requiring an engineer to provide the municipality with a draft structural heritage engineering report concerning an unsafe heritage building.

Applying the test for a stay from RJR‑MacDonald, the court accepted that there was a serious issue regarding the municipality’s jurisdiction to require disclosure of the report.

However, the court found that disclosure would not cause irreparable harm because the report was not privileged and any harm would be limited to the respondent’s financial interests if remediation rather than demolition were considered.

The balance of convenience favoured the municipality and the public interest, as the city required all available information to assess safety and potential preservation of the heritage structure.

The motion for a stay was therefore refused.

The respondents in the underlying proceeding brought a motion seeking recovery of $15,159.17 in costs allegedly incurred in a prior vendor–purchaser motion.

The court held that the relief sought fell outside the scope and jurisdiction of the files in which the motion was brought.

The evidence showed that the moving parties had resigned as directors of the foundation and therefore lacked authority to retain counsel or act on behalf of the foundation in the earlier proceeding.

Applying rule 57.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court declined to award costs to the moving parties and rejected their claim for recovery of those costs.

The motion was dismissed without costs.

Les requérants demandaient le recouvrement de dépens à la suite d’un litige relatif à la vente d’un bien‑fonds appartenant à une fondation.

Dans une requête antérieure, ils s’étaient opposés à la vente du bien-fonds et avaient été déboutés, la cour concluant qu’ils n’avaient pas respecté les obligations du vendeur prévues à la convention d’achat‑vente.

La cour a conclu que leur opposition infructueuse à la conclusion de la vente avait provoqué le litige et que leur conduite ne justifiait pas l’octroi de dépens en leur faveur.

Le recouvrement des dépens demandé par les requérants a donc été rejeté.

La motion incidente et toute compensation des dépens ont également été rejetées, sans ordonnance de dépens en faveur des intimés.