Ryan D. Garrett

The third parties, Steven Sheppard and SKS Law LLP, brought a motion to strike the defendant Lansdowne Office Inc.'s third party claim against them for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The third party claim sought contribution and indemnity under the Negligence Act, alleging that the third parties (the plaintiff's solicitors) provided negligent advice to the plaintiff regarding a commercial lease.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the alleged negligent advice was not attributable to the plaintiff and therefore could ground a third party claim for contribution and indemnity.

The defendant, Denise Lee Downing, brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the civil action initiated by the plaintiffs, Bernard Sparr and D’Vine Estates Sarl.

The plaintiffs' action sought substantial damages, alleging economic harm due to the defendant's false testimony in a prior family law proceeding.

The court found that the plaintiffs' civil action was an indirect attempt to re-litigate issues already decided in the family court, where the plaintiff Sparr had previously appealed unsuccessfully and had been declared a vexatious litigant.

The court concluded that the action constituted an abuse of process and granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The applicant sought specific performance to purchase a jointly owned property or, alternatively, an order for sale under the Partition Act.

The core dispute revolved around the enforceability and proper exercise of a right of first refusal clause in an agreement between the parties.

The court found that specific performance was not appropriate as damages would be an adequate remedy.

Crucially, the court determined that the right of first refusal was not properly exercised by either party due to lack of good faith and failure to follow the agreed-upon valuation mechanism.

Consequently, the parties remained joint owners until the property's eventual sale, and the net proceeds are to be shared equally, subject to an accounting for expenses and income.

This decision concerns a request for reconsideration of a prior order granting leave to the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim.

The defendant argued that an inadvertent error in the draft amendments quoted in the previous reasons was material, suggesting an attempt to introduce a negligent misrepresentation claim after the limitation period.

The court clarified that the actual proposed amendments were less problematic than the version inadvertently quoted.

The court affirmed its previous decision to grant leave to amend, finding the actual proposed amendments were more benign and did not warrant a different outcome.

No costs were awarded for the reconsideration request.

The Applicant sought three orders: to declare a Small Claims Court decision a nullity, to have a motion to strike defences heard by the Superior Court, and to transfer two Small Claims Court actions to the Superior Court.

The Applicant alleged judicial bias in the Small Claims Court.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding it was not properly before the court under Rule 14.05(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as it was essentially an interlocutory appeal not yet ripe for the Divisional Court.

The court also found no new facts to warrant transferring the Small Claims Court actions to the Superior Court, despite the Applicant's concerns about fairness, noting other Deputy Judges were available.

The plaintiff, Truestar Investments Ltd., was entirely successful in its action, including a motion for summary judgment, which resulted in the setting aside of fraudulent property transfers.

This endorsement addresses the plaintiff's request for partial indemnity costs.

The defendant, Iris Baer, did not dispute Truestar's entitlement to costs but challenged the quantum.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the complexity of the matter, the importance of the issues (recovering assets for creditors in a related bankruptcy), and the conduct of the defendant.

Specifically, Baer's late introduction of an argument necessitated two separate appearances for the summary judgment motion, increasing Truestar's costs.

The court found Truestar's counsel's hourly rates and docketed time reasonable, especially given the senior counsel's experience and the additional work required as the moving party.

The court fixed Truestar's partial indemnity costs at $28,900, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, and awarded an additional $1,750 for costs submissions.

The plaintiff, Moira Caron, sued for damages following a slip and fall in her workplace kitchenette.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendants, as occupiers, met their positive duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act by maintaining a reasonable system of cleaning, inspection, and call service.

The court also found that the plaintiff failed to prove that her ongoing complaints and inability to return to work after January 2011 were caused by the slip and fall incident, attributing them instead to a pre-existing anxiety disorder.

The applicant sought an order without notice to dispense with service of a notice of application on 79 registered homeowners.

The underlying application sought to remove a restrictive covenant from two lots to allow for a new road.

The court found that the applicant failed to establish that service was impractical under rule 16.04(1) based merely on cost and potential delay.

The court dismissed the request to dispense with service but ordered substituted service by leaving copies at the homes and sending them by regular mail.

The applicant, widow of the deceased, sought interpretation of an ambiguous will and also advanced alternative claims for equalization, dependent's relief, and constructive trust.

The respondents, children of the deceased, brought a motion for document production and opposed the applicant's motion to separate the will interpretation from the alternative claims.

The court found the applicant's joinder of civil and family law claims procedurally incorrect.

The court ordered the severance of the family law claims (equalization, unjust enrichment, support) and their transfer to Family Court, with a stay.

The will interpretation, rectification, or invalidity issues will continue as an application under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondents' production motion was dismissed as premature.

The applicants sought to maintain an interlocutory injunction enjoining a former employee and his new company from soliciting clients.

The court found that the applicants continued to be at risk of irreparable harm from the loss of goodwill and business.

The injunction was maintained but amended to prohibit direct solicitation for a one-year period while allowing the respondents to accept unsolicited work from the applicants' clients.

The applicants, lessors of a heritage property operating as a hotel, brought an application to determine the repair obligations under a commercial lease.

The lessors argued the lessee was responsible for all repairs, while the lessee argued the lessors were responsible for external repairs.

The court applied principles of contract interpretation and found that the lease explicitly excluded 'external walls' from the lessee's repair obligations.

The court further determined that, in the context of this specific building, 'external walls' included the mansard roofs, dormer windows, externally exposed chimneys, soffits, and fascia, making their repair the responsibility of the lessors.

Following a summary judgment motion and mini‑trial under Rule 20.04(2.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure concerning whether the moving defendants possessed a contractual right of indemnity against subcontractor defendants, the court had previously dismissed the indemnity claim.

The remaining issue concerned the costs of the mini‑trial and related steps.

Applying s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, the court held that the moving defendants unnecessarily prolonged the litigation, failed to meaningfully engage in settlement efforts, and advanced an indemnity theory unsupported by evidence.

The conduct justified a costs award on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving defendants were ordered to pay substantial indemnity costs to both the plaintiffs and the subcontractor defendants.

A retail tenant sought a declaration that its landlord’s insurer owed it a duty to defend a slip‑and‑fall action arising from an icy parking lot outside the tenant’s store.

The lease required the landlord to maintain common areas and to include the tenant as an additional insured under its comprehensive general liability policy.

The insurer argued that some allegations concerned the tenant’s operational conduct and sought to introduce extrinsic evidence about the tenant’s loading practices.

The court held that such evidence was inadmissible because it addressed issues in the underlying action and could prejudice the insured.

On a proper reading of the pleadings, the claim’s true nature was a slip‑and‑fall in a parking lot risk covered by the policy, triggering the insurer’s duty to defend.

Following a successful insurance coverage application concerning a duty to defend a personal injury action under a CGL policy, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicants sought 75% of their full indemnity costs, while the respondent argued that no costs should be awarded due to a prior settlement offer proposing payment of 50% of costs.

The court rejected the respondent’s position and confirmed that the applicants, as the successful party, were entitled to costs.

Applying the principles of proportionality and the usual partial indemnity approach under Rule 58, the court assessed costs at $4,500 payable by the respondent.

The applicants sought an order requiring their insurer to defend or indemnify defence costs in a negligence action arising from a slip-and-fall on shopping centre premises.

The applicants were additional insureds under a commercial general liability policy issued to a snow removal contractor, with coverage limited to operations performed by that contractor under a snow removal agreement.

The court held that some allegations in the underlying statement of claim potentially fell within the contractor’s contractual operations while others alleged independent occupiers’ liability outside the scope of the policy.

Because the pleadings disclosed both covered and uncovered claims, the insurer had a partial duty to defend.

The insurer was ordered to pay 75% of the applicants’ defence costs on an ongoing basis, subject to reconsideration as the factual record develops.

Following an unopposed application removing a co‑executor for misconduct, the court addressed costs.

The evidence established that the co‑executor misappropriated estate funds, frustrated asset sales, and commenced unauthorized legal proceedings in the name of the estate.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the conduct scandalous and warranting substantial indemnity costs.

However, the court reduced the claimed preparation time as disproportionate for an unopposed application.

Costs were ordered payable personally by the respondent rather than from the estate.