R. Ryan Bell

The defendants requisitioned an order to dismiss the plaintiffs' action under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs' claim alleged a wide-ranging conspiracy involving the defendants, lawyers, and judges, and sought to relitigate matters already determined in prior proceedings.

The court found the action to be manifestly devoid of merit, consisting of scandalous attacks and an evident attempt to relitigate decided issues.

The action was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicants brought an unopposed application for a declaration that the deceased's will met the formalities of execution under s. 4(2) of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The witnesses had initialed or signed every page except the last page and did not sign the attestation clause.

The court held that initials suffice as a subscription and that the witnesses' subscriptions do not need to be placed at the end of the will.

The application was granted and the will was declared valid.

The bankrupt applicants and their corporation brought a motion to remove protective orders registered on title by the respondent.

The protective orders restricted the applicants from dealing with their property without providing notice and details to the bankruptcy trustee.

The applicants argued the registration was contrary to their agreement and added an oversight requirement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the orders were properly registered under the Land Titles Act, remained in full force, and did not impose any additional oversight beyond what was already ordered.

The applicant moved to stay garnishment proceedings commenced by the respondent to collect unpaid costs awarded in an SDRCC arbitration.

The applicant argued that its application to set aside the arbitral award automatically stayed collection under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that arbitration awards are not subject to the automatic stay provisions of the Rules and that the applicant failed to establish grounds for an interim stay.

The court directed the garnishee bank to pay the garnished funds to the respondent.

The applicants, having been successful on the main application, sought costs of $46,351.88 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent argued the claimed amount was excessive, noting its own counsel spent significantly fewer hours.

The court found the applicants' hourly rates reasonable but the total hours claimed high, suggesting potential overlap between senior and junior counsel.

Applying the principles in Boucher and Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs at $40,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff was seriously injured when his four-wheel drive vehicle tipped backward at a motorsports park.

He brought an action for damages, and the defendants moved for summary judgment based on a release of liability and waiver of claims document signed by the plaintiff upon entry.

The court found that the plaintiff had the opportunity to read the waiver, which clearly stated it was a release of liability, and that the waiver covered the location of the accident and the plaintiff's participation.

The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against two physicians and a hospital, alleging she suffered permanent injuries following a vaginal myomectomy.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, relying on expert evidence that the physicians met the standard of care and that the surgery did not cause the alleged injuries.

The self-represented plaintiff failed to produce any expert evidence to support her claims despite multiple extensions.

The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the action, finding that the absence of expert evidence in a medical malpractice claim is fatal.

The defendant doctors brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce settlement documents and a pre-trial conference brief from two prior actions (a tort action and a statutory accident benefits action).

The plaintiff refused on the basis of settlement privilege.

The defendants argued that disclosure was necessary to prevent double recovery regarding a litigation loan that was claimed as damages in all three actions.

The court granted the motion, finding that the public interest in preventing overcompensation and facilitating meaningful settlement discussions in the current action outweighed the public interest in protecting the prior settlements, distinguishing the Supreme Court's decision in Sable Offshore.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to maintain their action under the Business Names Act after it was automatically stayed due to their failure to register their business name.

They also sought to deliver a reply to the defendant's amended statement of defence.

The court granted leave to maintain the action, as the defendant did not oppose it.

However, the court restricted the proposed reply, finding that many paragraphs improperly raised new issues or responded to unamended portions of the defence.

The defendant was awarded costs for its prior motion to amend, costs thrown away due to the trial adjournment, and costs of the current motion.

Following a judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for diminution in property value and engineering expenses due to environmental contamination, the parties disputed the calculation of prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff sought interest from the date the defendant was put on notice of the contamination at the presumptive rate of 1.3%, while the defendant argued for a later date and lower rate.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding no reason to depart from the presumptive rate or the date the cause of action arose, and awarded prejudgment interest accordingly.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction regarding a residential heat pump, the parties could not agree on costs.

The defendants sought costs between partial and substantial indemnity, citing the plaintiffs' conduct including a last-minute adjournment and lengthy cross-examinations.

The court found the conduct did not warrant elevated costs but considered it in fixing the quantum.

The court awarded the defendants costs of $17,773.21 on a partial indemnity basis, finding it to be a fair and reasonable amount.

Following a successful application for a compliance order against the respondent unit owners for noise, harassment, and by-law breaches, the applicant condominium corporation sought full indemnity costs.

The court awarded the applicant its full costs of $17,645.67 pursuant to section 134(5) of the Condominium Act and the corporation's declaration, finding that innocent unit owners should not bear the expense of enforcing compliance.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction to compel their neighbours to relocate a heat pump, alleging the noise and vibration constituted a nuisance and caused health issues.

The court applied the modified RJR-MacDonald test for mandatory injunctions.

The motion was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case, largely due to insufficient medical and expert evidence linking the heat pump to their complaints, and failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a Florida resident, in a personal injury action arising from a trip and fall at the CN Tower.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, claiming impecuniosity.

The court found the plaintiff failed to meet the rigorous standard of financial disclosure required to prove impecuniosity, noting her unencumbered condominium and lack of medical evidence regarding her inability to work.

Applying a holistic approach, the court ordered the plaintiff to post $17,000 in security for costs up to and including discoveries.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application to remove the respondent as estate trustee, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that the applicant's conduct throughout the litigation, which included making demonstrably untrue statements and unfounded allegations of fraud, was reprehensible and worthy of sanction.

The court declined to order costs payable out of the estate, applying the 'loser pays' principle.

The respondent was awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale, fixed at $48,975.94, payable by the applicant from her share of the estate.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following his convictions for two counts of sexual assault.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record and diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance use disorder.

The court found that the Crown failed to establish the requisite pattern of repetitive or persistent aggressive behaviour, or a failure to control sexual impulses, to warrant a dangerous offender designation.

However, the court found the offender to be a long-term offender, as there was a substantial risk of reoffending but a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community with appropriate treatment, including antipsychotic medication.

The offender was sentenced to 5 years and 4 years concurrent for the sexual assaults, less 2.5 years credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The applicant sought to remove the respondent, her uncle, as the estate trustee of her late uncle's estate, alleging a conflict of interest and animosity.

The applicant claimed she was not served with the notice of application for the certificate of appointment, which was proven false.

The court found no evidence of misconduct, conflict of interest, or animosity that would warrant the respondent's removal.

The application was dismissed, the certificate of appointment was ordered returned to the respondent, and the respondent was directed to pass his accounts.

The plaintiff moved to strike the defendant's jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action due to trial delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The action had been set down for trial in August 2018 and was scheduled for a four-week jury trial in March 2021.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendant's prima facie entitlement to a jury trial must yield to the overriding interests of justice, which include the timely resolution of civil disputes.

Given the suspension of civil jury trials in Ottawa and the capacity for in-court non-jury matters, justice would be better served by discharging the jury.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault, brought a pre-trial motion for directions under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code to determine whether text messages and images sent by the complainant to the applicant constituted 'records'.

The preliminary issue was whether the complainant had standing on this motion.

The court held that denying the complainant a voice at the records determination stage would be inconsistent with the legislative purpose of balancing the accused's rights with the complainant's privacy interests.

The court exercised its discretion to grant the complainant standing on the motion for directions.

The respondent father brought a motion for an order that the parties' four-year-old son be enrolled in in-person kindergarten.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing that the child should continue in daycare due to his asthma and the risk of COVID-19, and brought a cross-motion to enroll the child in counselling without the father's consent.

The court granted the father's motion, finding that the mother failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish an unacceptable level of risk to the child from attending school.

The court also dismissed the mother's cross-motion regarding counselling, finding no evidence that her preferred program was better than the home-based program the father agreed to.