Ronald Thomas Jamieson Craigen

During a Commercial List case conference in a complex multi‑party commercial dispute, the court addressed ongoing discovery and production issues among numerous defendants and third parties.

The court directed timelines for outstanding undertakings and warned that unresolved production disputes would require formal motions before a Master.

The court emphasized counsel’s obligation to cooperate in resolving discovery issues and indicated that failure to do so could result in elevated or full indemnity costs.

Additional guidance was provided regarding potential motions for non‑party examinations and production of partnership financial statements.

The court scheduled a further case conference and noted that the matter would not proceed to trial as early as previously anticipated due to outstanding discovery issues.

The appellant sought to stay or dismiss an Ontario contract action on the basis of a prior default declaratory judgment obtained in Minnesota stating that nothing was owed under the parties' agreements.

The Court of Appeal held that even assuming the technical requirements of res judicata or issue estoppel were met, the motion judge properly exercised discretion not to apply those doctrines where doing so would be unjust.

The court emphasized the absence of any merits determination in the foreign proceeding, the tactical and defensive nature of the foreign declaratory action, and the fact that the compensation claim was integrally tied to Ontario under contracts governed and enforced by Ontario law.

Comity did not require a stay in the circumstances.

During a Commercial List case management conference in a complex multi‑party securities and investment dispute, the court issued procedural directions governing ongoing litigation steps.

The court addressed the potential settlement motion involving certain defendants, confirmed the status of examinations for discovery, and ordered timelines for answering undertakings.

The judge provided structured options for handling refusals motions and warned that costs may be assessed per refusal to discourage unnecessary motions.

Additional directions were given regarding the timing of expert reports, a possible future summary judgment motion, and scheduling of the next case management conference.

Following a successful application and counter‑application concerning a boundary dispute between neighbouring properties, the successful parties sought full indemnity costs exceeding $82,000 plus disbursements.

The court held that full or substantial indemnity costs are exceptional and generally require reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct, which was not present.

The dispute concerned a narrow strip of land and was neither legally nor factually complex.

The court also found the claimed hourly rates and time spent excessive and disproportionate to the issues involved.

Costs were fixed at $25,000 plus disbursements and applicable taxes.

Following a motion to strike the corporate defendants’ statement of defence for failure to retain counsel, the defendants retained counsel shortly before the hearing and the motion was not argued.

The plaintiff sought costs thrown away for preparation of the motion.

The court held that bringing the motion was reasonable in complex fraud litigation where corporate defendants had delayed appointing counsel despite ample time.

Applying Rule 57 factors and the principles governing reasonable costs, the court awarded partial indemnity costs for fees and reduced disbursements.

Payment of the costs award was staggered due to the circumstances of the corporate defendants.

Neighbouring property owners disputed the boundary between their Toronto properties after a survey revealed that the respondents’ driveway encroached approximately 0.28 to 0.33 metres onto the applicants’ registered title.

The respondents asserted possessory title to the encroaching strip through adverse possession arising from long‑standing exclusive use of the driveway by them and their predecessor in title.

The court applied the test for adverse possession from Keefer v. Arillotta and held that continuous, exclusive possession based on a mistaken belief as to the boundary existed for more than ten years prior to the conversion of the land to the Land Titles system.

Expert photogrammetry evidence suggesting the driveway had shifted was rejected as unreliable.

The court concluded that the respondents obtained possessory title to the disputed strip and that the applicants had been dispossessed.

Following an unsuccessful motion by the defendant seeking to dismiss the plaintiff’s action on the basis of res judicata, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The motion involved complex legal issues including the doctrine of res judicata, conflict of laws, and analysis of a United States declaratory judgment forming the basis of the defendant’s argument.

The plaintiff sought substantial partial indemnity costs reflecting extensive research, including evidence from U.S. counsel regarding American law.

The court found the claimed hours excessive for a one‑day motion but accepted that the issues were complex and important.

The court fixed reasonable partial indemnity costs and allowed the claimed disbursements.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss or stay an Ontario action on the basis of res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process, relying on a Minnesota default declaratory judgment obtained after the plaintiff declined to attorn to the jurisdiction of the U.S. court.

The Ontario court found that the Minnesota judgment did not determine the dispute on the merits and that the defendant failed to disclose the pending Ontario proceedings when seeking default judgment.

Applying the principles governing recognition of foreign judgments, the court held there was no real and substantial connection between the dispute and Minnesota sufficient under Canadian conflict of laws rules.

The court further concluded that the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel did not apply, and even if they did, discretion should be exercised to refuse their application to avoid injustice and the appearance of forum shopping.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion to set aside a chambers judge's decision dismissing her motion for leave to extend time to file a notice of appeal.

The appellant argued the chambers judge misapplied the test for extending time by failing to consider prejudice to the appellant and the justice of the case.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the chambers judge properly applied the test and that the proposed fresh evidence did not meet the test for admission.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the motion, emphasizing the need to view the test through a mental health lens for self-represented litigants with mental health issues.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from an order dismissing her motion to set aside the dismissal of her wrongful dismissal action.

The action had been dismissed due to her failure to comply with a pre-trial order.

Applying the Kefeli factors, the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for her delay and lacked evidence of an arguable case on the merits.

The appellant, a Minnesota company, appealed the dismissal of its motion to stay the respondent's Ontario breach of contract action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in assessing the location of witnesses, documents, and geography, and that a default judgment obtained in a parallel Minnesota action should trump all other factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's assessment of the factors was supported by the evidence and that a foreign default judgment is merely one factor to be weighed in the forum non conveniens analysis, not a determinative one.

Following the dismissal of a motion to dismiss an action on the basis of forum non conveniens, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought $25,000 plus disbursements and HST on a partial indemnity basis, while the opposing party argued that amount was excessive and proposed $15,000 inclusive.

The court found the docketed time claimed exceeded what was necessary for the motion.

Accepting the lower proposal, the court fixed costs at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside service of the statement of claim and stay the Ontario action on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing Minnesota was the more appropriate forum.

Parallel proceedings had been commenced earlier in Minnesota where a declaratory judgment had already been granted by default.

Applying the Muscutt factors, the court found most factors neutral, with geography slightly favouring Ontario due to the location of the business operations and the negotiation of the agreements.

Although a Minnesota judgment had been obtained, the court held that first‑to‑file and parallel proceedings were not determinative.

The defendant failed to establish that Minnesota was the clearly more appropriate forum, and the motion was dismissed.