Ronald Thomas Jamieson Craigen

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.

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.