R. Steven Baldwin

The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment to strike the plaintiff's derivative claim, appoint independent counsel for the nominal corporate defendant, and amend their pleadings.

The dispute arose over rental payments between two related corporations following a shareholder's death.

The court found the derivative action was not a nullity and appeared to be in the corporation's interests, except for the plaintiff's request to wind up the corporation.

To resolve the conflict of interest without appointing independent counsel, the court stayed the derivative action pending the determination of the plaintiff's oppression claim.

Leave to amend pleadings was granted.

The plaintiff's home was destroyed by fire.

The insurer paid the policy limits for the building and an advance for the contents.

The plaintiff sued the insurer in negligence, claiming the property was underinsured and seeking additional damages for both the building and contents.

The court dismissed the negligence claim, finding the insurer owed no duty of care regarding the replacement cost calculation, as the plaintiff relied solely on his broker.

The court also found the plaintiff was not entitled to replacement cost value for the building because he chose not to rebuild.

However, the court granted relief from forfeiture regarding the plaintiff's failure to submit a sworn proof of loss for the contents claim, finding the insurer had waived the requirement.

The court assessed the actual cash value of the contents and awarded the plaintiff an additional $51,000.

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion under Rule 49 to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the defendants regarding a dispute over the construction of a house.

The defendants' solicitor had accepted an offer to settle for $80,000, but the defendants subsequently refused to sign the release because they did not want to release their Tarion new home warranty claims.

The court found that a binding agreement was reached by solicitors with apparent authority and declined to exercise its discretion to set aside the agreement based on a mistake between the defendants and their solicitor.

The motion was granted, and judgment was issued for $80,000 plus costs.

The defendant freight forwarder brought a motion for partial summary judgment on its counterclaim for unpaid invoices.

The plaintiff had contracted the defendant to transport machinery from Brazil to Ontario, which was delayed and invoiced at a significantly higher amount than quoted.

The plaintiff sued for damages and the defendant counterclaimed for the unpaid invoice balance, relying on a clause in its Standard Trading Conditions requiring payment without set-off.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the disputed invoice amounts were deeply connected to the plaintiff's underlying claim and that granting partial summary judgment would not reduce the complexity or duration of the upcoming trial, risking inconsistent findings of fact.

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.

The applicant sought leave to appeal or set aside two arbitral awards issued in favour of the respondent regarding a commercial dispute over the manufacture of blow moulding machines.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had waived its right to object to the arbitrator's jurisdiction by failing to raise the issue until closing arguments.

Furthermore, the court held that the 'final and binding' language in the parties' arbitration agreement precluded any right of appeal under s. 45 of the Arbitration Act.

The court also rejected arguments that the arbitrator failed to consider evidence, acted unfairly, or demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias, concluding that the arbitrator's findings were reasonable and well-founded.

The applicant sought a stay of enforcement of an arbitral award and a stay of the ongoing arbitration proceedings pending its application for leave to appeal or set aside the award.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court also declined to stay the ongoing arbitration proceedings, citing the kompetenz-kompetenz principle, noting that such a request should be directed to the arbitrator.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their Statement of Claim and add parties.

The defendants consented to the amendments but sought costs thrown away for steps already taken, including preparing the original statement of defence and securing productions.

The court dismissed the claim for costs thrown away, finding that the motion was not a last-minute application and the steps taken were not redundant or useless.

The court noted that the defendants could claim these costs at trial if successful.

The plaintiff was severely injured in a head-on collision with a propane tanker on a snow-covered municipal road.

The plaintiffs sued the driver of the tanker and the municipalities responsible for winter road maintenance.

The court found that the road was in a state of non-repair that contributed to the accident, and the municipality failed to prove it took reasonable steps to maintain the road.

Liability was apportioned 50% to the municipal defendants, 33% to the tanker driver, and 17% to the plaintiff for contributory negligence.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, who resides in Ottawa, to attend a neuropsychological independent medical examination in Mississauga.

The plaintiff objected, providing medical opinions that the 450 km travel would be medically detrimental to her recovery from a traumatic brain injury.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while a defendant generally has the right to choose their medical expert, the choice must not be unreasonably inconvenient or compromise the plaintiff's medical well-being, especially when alternative experts are available closer to the plaintiff's residence.

The defendants unsuccessfully moved to set aside ex parte orders granting the plaintiffs leave to register certificates of pending litigation and appointing a monitor.

The plaintiffs sought costs of the motion payable forthwith, while the defendants argued costs should be in the cause due to unproven allegations of civil fraud.

The court ordered the defendants to pay $5,000 forthwith for the portion of the motion relating to the certificates of pending litigation.

However, the court held that the $35,000 in costs for the portion relating to the monitor should be payable to the plaintiffs only if they are ultimately successful in the litigation.

The defendants moved to set aside ex parte orders that granted the plaintiffs certificates of pending litigation against certain properties and appointed a monitor over two furniture store franchises.

The dispute arose from an intra-family sale of the franchises, where the plaintiffs alleged the defendants made misrepresentations about the transaction's proceeds and the inclusion of additional properties.

The defendants argued the ex parte orders should be set aside for failure to make full and fair disclosure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material non-disclosure, and maintained the certificates of pending litigation and the monitor, concluding that a triable issue remained and the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs.

The defendants in a motor vehicle collision action brought a third party claim against the Crown (HMQ) for negligent road maintenance.

The defendants moved to compel HMQ to provide documentary and oral discovery.

HMQ argued that the claim was barred by the WSIA and the PTHIA, and that there is no right of discovery against the Crown under the PTHIA.

The court held that s. 33(7) of the PTHIA contemplates discovery rights against the Crown and that HMQ had also voluntarily agreed to discovery.

HMQ was ordered to deliver its list of documents and attend an examination for discovery.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for a fuel oil spill at the respondents' home.

The trial judge found that the appellants negligently failed to identify that the respondents' fuel oil tank, which was labelled for indoor use, was installed outdoors, and failed to tag it as non-compliant.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by applying the 'material contribution' test for causation instead of the 'but for' test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while the trial judge articulated the wrong test, she effectively applied the 'but for' test by finding the spill would not have occurred if the appellants had fulfilled their regulatory obligations.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's apportionment of liability, finding of contributory negligence, and damages assessment.

The court determined the issue of costs following a decision on spousal support where the applicant secured support for a further seven years and the respondent secured an end date.

Finding this to be a case of divided success where neither party achieved an outcome more favourable than their offer to settle, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

Following the successful summary judgment motions by six third parties dismissing the third party claims against them, the court determined the costs to be awarded.

The defendants argued that costs for a prior summary judgment motion and an appeal should not be included.

The court found that the preparation for the prior motion and attendance at the appeal were incidental to the third party claims and awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, rejecting a request for substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff was injured during a recreational tug-of-war game at a campground.

The defendants previously moved for summary judgment, which was granted but subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding vicarious liability.

The defendants brought a second motion for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the second motion, holding that the defendants were precluded by the doctrine of issue estoppel from relitigating the Court of Appeal's finding that there is a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendants in a personal injury action arising from a recreational tug-of-war game brought a third-party claim for contribution and indemnity against several other participants in the game.

Six of the third parties moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against them.

The court applied the Anns/Cooper test and found that the participants did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, as they did not organize the event, create the risk, or have a special relationship requiring them to take positive action to prevent injury.

The court granted the motions and dismissed the third-party claims.

The plaintiffs suffered a residential fuel oil spill when their outdoor tank, which was labelled for indoor use, corroded and leaked.

They sued their fuel oil supplier, Ultramar, and its sub-contractor, Kilpatrick Fuels, in negligence and breach of contract.

The court found that the defendants breached the standard of care under the Technical Standards and Safety Act regime by failing to properly inspect, tag, and mandate the replacement of the non-compliant tank.

However, the court also found the plaintiffs contributorily negligent for failing to maintain their heating system.

Liability was apportioned 60% to Ultramar and 40% to the plaintiffs, with Ultramar entitled to 50% contribution from Kilpatrick.

The plaintiffs were awarded agreed subrogated damages of $750,000 and general damages of $30,000.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury claim arising from an ATV accident, arguing it was statute-barred under the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff argued the claim was not discoverable until she received medical reports confirming her injuries met the threshold for permanent serious impairment.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding that a reasonable person in her circumstances would not have known the injuries were permanent until the medical reports were available, which occurred well within the limitation period.

The motion was dismissed.