SCJ 2017

The plaintiff was successful in defending a Rule 21 motion brought by the defendant to strike the statement of claim.

The plaintiff sought costs of approximately $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the defendant submitted that costs should be in the range of $3,500, consistent with two previous similar motions.

The court found the plaintiff's costs outline to be surprisingly high and noted that the defendant should not have to pay for the plaintiff's previous failures to properly plead the claim.

The court exercised its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to award the plaintiff costs fixed at $3,500, allowing the defendant to set off $3,000 in unpaid costs owed from a previous motion.

The accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm after violently beating a woman in his apartment, resulting in serious injuries including a broken nose.

The accused had a criminal record that included previous assaults against a domestic partner.

The Crown sought an additional 6 to 12 months in custody on top of time served, while the defence sought a sentence of time served and probation.

The court imposed a sentence of two years in prison, less credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving 17 days to serve, followed by three years of probation.

The applicant brought a motion to continue a certificate of pending litigation on a property she previously resided in.

She claimed an interest in the property through an unproven constructive trust and alleged that the respondent's sale of the fire-damaged property to a third party was a fraudulent conveyance.

The court found the applicant's claim to an interest in the land to be tenuous and noted the absence of typical badges of fraud.

The motion was dismissed and the certificate of pending litigation was ordered vacated.

The plaintiffs in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the foreign exchange market brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add BMO and TD as defendants.

The proposed defendants argued the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs claimed they only discovered the involvement of BMO and TD after receiving a proffer of evidence from a settling defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover the claims against BMO and TD before the expiry of the limitation period.

The accused, facing drug charges following a vehicle search, brought an application for the disclosure of police GPS tracking data to challenge the arresting officers' version of events and support a Charter claim of unreasonable search.

The court held that police GPS data, while not gathered primarily as an investigative tool, relates to the investigation and falls under the Crown's first-party disclosure obligations under Stinchcombe rather than the third-party O'Connor regime.

Finding the data relevant to the accused's defence, the court ordered its production but narrowed the temporal scope of the request.

The moving party sought to set aside a default judgment that reversed the transfer of her former common-law spouse's interest in their jointly-owned home under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The court applied the three-part test for setting aside a default judgment.

The court found that the moving party failed to provide an adequate explanation for her default, delayed unreasonably in bringing the motion, and presented a weak defence on the merits regarding whether the assumption of a mortgage constituted good consideration.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The applicant, a municipal councillor charged with assaulting the deputy mayor, sought to vary his bail conditions to permit him to attend town council meetings.

His original bail conditions included a no-contact order with the victim and witnesses, and prohibited him from attending the town hall.

The applicant argued that his inability to attend meetings for three successive months would result in the loss of his council seat under the Municipal Act.

The court found that his unrestricted attendance posed an unacceptable risk to the victim and witnesses.

However, to prevent the automatic loss of his seat, the court granted a limited variation allowing him to attend one specific meeting for the sole purpose of registering his attendance, provided he is accompanied by a police officer at his own expense.

The accused was charged with trafficking fentanyl and tendering forged prescriptions after someone using his identity picked up fentanyl from a pharmacy.

The defence brought an alternate suspect application, arguing the accused's brother or another associate committed the offences using the accused's identification.

The Crown opposed the application on the basis of insufficient notice.

The court allowed the alternate suspect evidence, finding that formal application notice is not strictly required when the evidentiary foundation is clear and relevant.

Ultimately, the court found the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt due to the circumstantial nature of the evidence and the plausible involvement of the alternate suspects.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for enforcement of a separation agreement, damages, and relief related to foreign divorce proceedings, as well as a motion to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion regarding the property transfer, finding genuine issues for trial concerning the alleged breach and limitation periods.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims related to the Ukrainian divorce proceedings, as they fell outside Ontario's jurisdiction and disclosed no known cause of action.

The motion to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant was also dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs' affiants to answer undertakings and refusals from their cross-examinations.

The primary issue was whether the plaintiffs waived solicitor-client privilege over their counsel's file regarding a business sale by placing their state of mind and legal advice in issue in their pleadings and affidavits.

The court found that the plaintiffs had waived privilege and ordered the production of the entire file and answers to related questions.

However, the court upheld refusals relating to the Assignment of Guarantees, legal accounts, and questions of law or relevance.

The motion was granted in part.

The applicants and respondents are neighbours who share a driveway.

The respondents built a fence down the middle of the driveway on their property line, preventing the applicants from accessing their rear parking spaces.

The applicants brought an application claiming a prescriptive easement over the respondents' portion of the driveway based on the doctrine of lost modern grant.

The court found that the applicants established 20 years of continuous, uninterrupted, open, and peaceful use of the driveway prior to the properties being registered in the land titles system.

The application was granted, and the respondents were ordered to remove the fence.

Following a trial where the plaintiff cemetery company's action for breach of fiduciary duty was dismissed as statute-barred and the defendants' action for declaratory relief was conceded, the parties sought costs.

The court found that both sides bore responsibility for the protracted and expensive litigation, which was driven more by a need for vindication than the specific relief sought.

The court concluded that the outcome was essentially a draw and ordered each party to bear its own costs.

The court also declined to order costs against non-party directors and officers of the cemetery company, finding no jurisdiction to do so.

During a personal injury jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants sought to introduce surveillance videos of the plaintiff from 2013 and 2015 as substantive evidence.

The plaintiff objected, arguing the videos lacked probative value because she had already testified she could perform the recorded activities on a 'good day,' and that their admission would be prejudicial.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the videos relevant to assessing the degree of her impairment and concluding that their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The 2013 and 2015 surveillance videos were ruled admissible.

During a jury trial for a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff brought a motion to exclude portions of the defence orthopedic expert's proposed testimony.

The plaintiff objected to the expert testifying about symptom exaggeration and the theory of chronic pain syndrome (central sensitization).

Applying the Mohan and Abbey frameworks, the court allowed the expert to testify regarding symptom exaggeration, finding it within his clinical expertise.

However, the court excluded his opinions on central sensitization, ruling he lacked the necessary qualifications and his evidence failed the gatekeeper cost-benefit analysis.

The expert was also restricted from testifying about undisclosed research and cautioned to present his evidence professionally.

The moving party's motion to change a custody and access order, based on unfounded allegations of parental alienation, was dismissed.

The responding party, having been entirely successful, sought costs of $21,048.51.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, noting the moving party's unreasonable behaviour in pursuing unfounded allegations.

The court also applied Rule 18(14), as the responding party had made an offer to settle that was more favourable than the final order.

The court awarded the responding party partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and full indemnity costs thereafter, fixing total costs at $20,201.01.

The court heard three procedural motions in a $100 million commercial dispute involving allegations of breach of contract and breach of confidence.

The defendants moved to compel the plaintiffs to answer undertakings and refusals from discovery, which the court largely granted, ordering the plaintiffs to provide development timelines and material facts supporting their group enterprise claims.

The plaintiffs brought two motions: one to strike the defendants' response to a request to admit an incomplete affidavit, and another to compel updated answers regarding expert witnesses.

The court dismissed both of the plaintiffs' motions, noting the defendants' ongoing obligation to correct discovery answers under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a tumultuous relationship.

Following separation, the respondent engaged in a campaign of criminal harassment against the applicant, resulting in a criminal conviction, probation, and supervised access.

At trial, the court considered whether to loosen access restrictions.

The court granted the applicant sole custody and ordered a phased expansion of the respondent's access, subject to strict conditions including anger management and drug/alcohol assessments.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay ongoing child support of $776.80 per month and maintained his existing arrears.

The accused held herself out as a registered nurse to administer Botox, dermal fillers, and chemical peels to several complainants.

The complainants suffered various injuries, including scarring, disfigurement, and allergic reactions.

The court found that the complainants' consent to the procedures was vitiated by the accused's fraudulent misrepresentation of her credentials.

The court held that the use of a syringe needle without valid consent constituted assault with a weapon.

The accused was found guilty of fraud, multiple counts of assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm, and uttering threats.

The applicant, a dependent spouse residing in a long-term care facility, brought a motion for directions and preservation orders against her deceased husband's estate and its beneficiaries.

The deceased had previously severed the joint tenancy of their matrimonial home using a Power of Attorney, sold the home, and transferred funds to himself and his niece (the Estate Trustee).

The court ordered the Estate Trustee to provide an informal accounting of the deceased's management of the applicant's property, her own management of the deceased's property, and her actions as Estate Trustee.

The court also granted an injunction preventing the dissipation of estate assets and ordered the beneficiaries to pay into court any monies received from the deceased or his estate.

The self-represented applicant's motion under the Provincial Offences Act was dismissed.

The respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the applicant's conduct was vexatious and caused unnecessary delay.

The applicant argued that under s. 142(5) of the Provincial Offences Act, no costs should be awarded.

The court held that it retains broad discretion under the Courts of Justice Act to award costs to discourage frivolous and meritless litigation.

The court awarded costs to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis, fixing them at $4,500 for the municipality and $10,000 for the conservation authority.