Associate Judge Ronna M. Brott

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion to amend its Statement of Claim to add the manufacturer of a heat pump sensor as a defendant in a subrogated claim for water damage.

The proposed defendant opposed the motion, arguing the two-year limitation period had expired and the plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in identifying it.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in discovering the manufacturer's identity, which raised a triable issue of discoverability to be determined at trial or on summary judgment.

The proposed defendant was permitted to plead a limitation defence.

No costs were awarded.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 56.01(1)(d) seeking an order that the plaintiff, a not-for-profit family health team, post $500,000 as security for costs.

The plaintiff opposed the motion on the basis of impecuniosity, having ceased operations after its sole source of funding was terminated.

The court found that the plaintiff was impecunious and that its claim for misappropriation of funds was not devoid of merit, relying on two forensic audit reports.

The court concluded it would be unjust to order security for costs and dismissed the motion, awarding costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend his statement of claim to add allegations that the defendant insurer's underwriting policy constituted discrimination under the Human Rights Code, and to clarify facts and plead provisions of the Insurance Act.

The defendant opposed the Human Rights Code amendments, arguing lack of jurisdiction, untimeliness due to limitation period expiry, and prejudice.

The court found it had jurisdiction under Section 46.1 of the Code, as the Code claim was brought with an independent cause of action (breach of insurance contract).

It also determined that the limitation period for the Code amendments had not expired, as the plaintiff only discovered the relevant underwriting guidelines in March 2021, and in any event, declaratory relief sought under the Code has no limitation period.

The court found no uncompensable prejudice to the defendant.

Leave to amend was granted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The moving party brought a motion to compel the responding party to produce pre-July 2015 plant data and answer written discovery questions pursuant to a prior consent order.

The responding party brought a cross-motion to compel the moving party to answer written questions.

The court ordered the responding party to produce the plant data, with the moving party to pay 50% of the production costs up to $25,000.

The court also interpreted the prior consent order broadly, directing both parties to answer all refused written discovery questions relating to the amended pleadings.

Following a motion where the defendant ProBuilt was permitted to withdraw an admission and amend its pleadings regarding the manufacturer of a wobblelight, the parties made submissions on costs.

The responding parties sought substantial indemnity costs and significant 'reset' costs due to the late amendment.

The court found that while the responding parties were successful in opposing the amendment under Rule 26.01, ProBuilt was granted an indulgence under Rule 51.05.

Balancing the mixed success, the delay, and the reasonable reset costs required, the court ordered ProBuilt to pay $20,000 in partial indemnity costs to each of the three responding parties.

The defendants and third party brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiffs, who operated a fitness club before defaulting on their commercial lease and equipment leases.

The court found there was good reason to believe the plaintiffs had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient assets, impecuniosity, or a good chance of success on the merits of their conspiracy and conversion claims.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post $80,000 in security for costs for each of the Crunch defendants, the Church defendant, and the third party.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to amend her Statement of Claim, add new party defendants, compel further documentary production, and compel additional examinations for discovery in her wrongful dismissal action.

The court found the proposed 85-page amended pleading to be replete with evidence, irrelevant arguments, and inflammatory attacks, violating the rules of pleading.

The motion was dismissed in its entirety as frivolous, scandalous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The parties were ordered to proceed to mediation and then examinations for discovery.

The defendant brought a motion seeking leave to compel the plaintiff to post $135,000 as security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) and (d).

The plaintiff, an extra-provincial corporation, sued the defendant for $2.5 million for breach of contract regarding a unilateral reduction in sales commissions.

The court found the defendant met the initial onus under Rule 56.01(1)(d).

However, the court dismissed the motion, finding it would be unjust to order security because the plaintiff's principal undertook to make her personal investment account available to satisfy any costs award.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 59.06 to set aside a consent order that struck her claims and required her to reconstitute them within 30 days.

The plaintiff's former lawyer had failed to inform her of the order or comply with the deadline due to health reasons.

The court found that the defendants failed to demonstrate prejudice that could not be compensated by costs, and that the prejudice to the plaintiff in losing her substantive rights outweighed any prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was granted, the order was set aside, and the three related actions were consolidated.

The defendant, ProBuilt Lighting, brought a motion to withdraw an admission in its Statement of Defence that it manufactured a 'wobblelight' alleged to have caused a fire at a hospital.

The defendant discovered during discoveries that it did not exist at the time the light was manufactured.

The court granted the motion, finding that the admission was based on incomplete and erroneous information, there was a triable issue regarding the manufacturer, and the plaintiffs would not suffer prejudice that could not be compensated by costs.

The plaintiff in a defamation action brought a motion for leave to discontinue the proceeding with prejudice.

The self-represented defendant opposed the motion, arguing that a Master lacked jurisdiction because his pending anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act must be heard by a judge, and that the motion to discontinue constituted an impermissible 'further step' under section 137.1(5).

The Master held that Masters have jurisdiction to hear motions to discontinue under Rule 23.01, and that seeking to end the litigation is not a 'further step' barred by the anti-SLAPP provisions.

Applying the test for discontinuance, the Master granted the motion, finding it the most just and expeditious way to end the dispute, and ordered that the discontinuance bars any subsequent action on the same causes.

The plaintiff, an accounting firm, brought a motion to compel the non-party Deloitte LLP to produce documents related to two client audits.

The plaintiff alleged that a former partner, now at Deloitte, misused and misappropriated confidential client data upon his departure.

The defendant and Deloitte refused disclosure.

The court applied Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering the relevance of the documents to liability and damages, and whether it would be unfair for the plaintiff to proceed without them.

The court found the documents relevant and necessary for the plaintiff's expert, and that the defendant's discovery evidence was inadequate.

Despite Deloitte's confidentiality concerns, the court ordered production, subject to a non-disclosure agreement and sealing order, finding Deloitte was not a "stranger" to the litigation.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiffs in an action alleging bad faith and negligence by the insurers.

The court found that the defendants met their initial burden under Rule 56.01(1)(d) as the plaintiffs were corporations with insufficient assets in Ontario.

The burden shifted to the plaintiffs, who failed to prove impecuniosity due to incomplete financial disclosure and undisclosed real estate purchases.

The plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate a good chance of success on the merits of their bad faith claim.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post security for costs in installments totaling $65,000.

The plaintiffs sought production of banking, income tax, and municipal records from the defendants in two civil actions alleging conversion of millions of dollars in assets.

A preliminary motion by the defendants to strike the plaintiffs' extensive affidavit evidence was partially successful, but the court decided to proceed with the main production motion, ignoring irrelevant evidence.

The court granted the production order for tax records and CIBC banking records, finding them relevant to the alleged breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, and that the need for information outweighed privacy concerns.

Municipal and county records were produced by consent.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer 143 questions refused during her cross-examination on an affidavit filed in response to the defendants' summary judgment motion.

The summary judgment motion was based on the expiry of the limitation period.

The plaintiff had refused questions on the basis of relevance and solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that questions seeking the legal significance of material facts were not relevant to discoverability.

The court also held that the plaintiff had not waived solicitor-client privilege, as she had not voluntarily put her state of mind or legal advice in issue.

The motion to compel answers was dismissed.

The defendants in a solicitors' negligence action brought a motion to stay the proceeding pending payment of a prior costs order and for security for costs.

The court declined to stay the action over a disputed $240 interest claim.

However, the court granted the motion for security for costs, finding that the corporate plaintiff resided outside Ontario, had insufficient assets in the province, and failed to prove impecuniosity.

The plaintiff was ordered to post $15,000 as security for costs up to the completion of discoveries.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff under Rule 56.01(d).

The plaintiff sued for unpaid invoices relating to network infrastructure work, while the defendant counterclaimed for fraud and unjust enrichment, alleging overcharging.

The court found that the plaintiff was impecunious, largely due to a significant tax debt to the CRA, and that its claim had a good chance of success.

Consequently, the court held that an order for security for costs would be unjust and dismissed the motion.

The defendant employer in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike paragraphs from the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim and Reply and Defence to Counterclaim.

The defendant argued the paragraphs improperly pleaded privileged settlement discussions and without prejudice communications.

The Master partially granted the motion, striking the paragraphs that explicitly detailed settlement offers and negotiations as scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

However, the Master permitted the plaintiff to maintain pleadings alleging bad faith and after-the-fact cause, as these constituted material facts supporting claims for punitive and aggravated damages.

The plaintiff, York Region Vacant Land Condominium Corporation No. 1010, brought a motion for leave to file a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, including the addition of a new defendant, Patrick Greco.

The defendants opposed certain proposed amendments, arguing they were scandalous, irrelevant, or pleaded evidence.

The Master granted leave to amend the statement of claim and add the new defendant, but struck paragraphs 8, 95, and 102-105 from the proposed pleading, finding them to be scandalous references, irrelevant, or improper pleadings of evidence.

The plaintiff obtained an ex parte Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property that had been transferred from the defendant's ex-husband to the defendant as part of a separation agreement.

The defendant moved to discharge the CPL, arguing the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts, including a prior settlement and release, and the circumstances surrounding a previous motion to renew a writ of execution.

The court found the plaintiff breached the duty of full and fair disclosure under Rule 39.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and discharged the CPL, emphasizing the exceptional duty on parties seeking ex parte relief.