SCJ 2021

The defendant in a slip and fall personal injury action brought a motion seeking production of the plaintiff's pre-accident medical and employment records.

The plaintiff claimed damages for injuries to her right ankle and left knee, while the defendant argued her pre-existing chronic back and ankle conditions were relevant to assessing her original position and future functioning.

The court ordered production of the records, but limited the scope to documents specifically relating to back, ankle, leg, and foot issues from 2001 or 2003 onwards, finding that her entire medical history was not relevant.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $15,123.05 following a successful motion for child support and section 7 expenses.

The applicant argued that each party should bear their own costs or that costs be fixed at $5,000.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, the court rejected the request for full indemnity costs.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $8,250, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, after accounting for a $750 set-off for a prior adjournment.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a lien against the respondent unit owner for unpaid common expenses.

On the eve of the hearing, the respondent paid the outstanding common expenses and interest, leaving only the issue of legal costs to be resolved.

The condominium sought to include its full legal costs of $56,327.33 in the certificate of lien pursuant to section 85(3) of the Condominium Act.

The court found that the respondent's history of non-payment, her meritless defence and counterclaim, and her failure to make meaningful settlement efforts justified the full amount.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the full $56,327.33 in legal costs.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a previous order for the sale of a property held by the parties as tenants in common.

The respondent, who was self-represented, had failed to comply with the previous order by delaying the selection of real estate agents and refusing to cooperate with the sale process.

The court found that the respondent had breached the previous order and granted the applicant sole authority to list and sell the property, dispensing with the respondent's consent.

The respondent was ordered to vacate the property within 60 days and to comply with outstanding disclosure obligations.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a $200,000 settlement under Rule 49.09, arguing they had accepted a 2016 offer from the defendants in 2020.

The court found that while the 2016 letter contained a valid Rule 49 offer that remained open for acceptance, the plaintiffs' purported acceptance in 2020 introduced new terms regarding mutual releases and costs involving parties not represented by the offeror's counsel.

Consequently, the purported acceptance was a counter-offer, and no agreement on essential terms was reached.

The motion to enforce the settlement was dismissed.

The accused, a police officer, was targeted in an undercover corruption investigation.

He was charged with 14 offences arising from his interactions with an undercover officer posing as his partner and another undercover officer posing as a mid-level organized crime figure.

The court found the accused guilty of theft and uttering forged documents for keeping money intended for a fictitious confidential informant and forging the receipt.

He was also found guilty of unauthorized use of a computer and breach of trust for running licence plates for personal reasons and to assist the undercover drug dealer.

The accused was found guilty of possessing a firearm obtained by crime and possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose after he stole a police shotgun in preparation for robbing a drug warehouse.

However, he was acquitted of attempted robbery because his extensive planning had not progressed beyond mere preparation.

He was also convicted of trafficking cocaine by offer and trafficking steroids to the undercover officer.

The applicant father sought a refund of child support and section 7 expenses paid for his adult son's post-secondary education.

The father had continued to pay the full table amount of support while the son lived away from home, and argued that many of the section 7 expenses claimed by the respondent mother were already covered by the table amount.

The court found that the son was required to contribute to his own education from summer earnings and grants, and that expenses such as food, utilities, and toiletries were covered by the table support.

The court ordered the mother to reimburse the father $20,822.73 for overpaid section 7 expenses and support paid after the son began working full-time.

The applicant father brought a motion in a high-conflict parenting dispute seeking to terminate the children's current counselling and commence reconciliation counselling to re-establish his parenting time.

The respondent mother agreed to terminate the current counselling but proposed trauma therapy before reconciliation counselling.

The court found no basis to delay reconciliation counselling and ordered the parties to immediately engage in reconciliation counselling with a newly appointed therapist pursuant to section 28 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The Crown brought an ex parte application for an order permitting the police to interview two lawyers regarding disclosures made to them by a now-deceased complainant about historical sexual assaults allegedly committed by the accused.

The lawyers had declined to speak to police without a court order, citing solicitor-client privilege.

The court granted the application, finding that the complainant's father, as Estate Trustee, had validly waived the privilege.

In the alternative, the court held that the privilege should be waived in the interests of justice, as the deceased no longer had an interest to protect and waiving the privilege would further the administration of justice.

The applicant hotel sought a declaration from the Superior Court of Justice that it was eligible for electricity rebates under the Ontario Rebate for Electricity Consumers Act 2016 and the Ontario Fair Hydro Plan Act.

The respondent local electricity distribution company brought a motion to stay the proceedings, arguing the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Energy Board.

The court granted the motion and stayed the application, finding that the substance of the dispute involved enforceable provisions under the Ontario Energy Board Act, granting the Board exclusive jurisdiction.

The young person, charged with second degree murder, brought a Charter application challenging the validity of a search warrant executed at his residence.

He argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) failed to establish he resided at the address, the warrant was overly broad, the search of seized cell phones occurred outside the warrant's time limit, and the affiant deliberately misled the issuing justice.

The court dismissed the application, finding sufficient surveillance evidence linked the young person to the residence, the seizure of multiple phones was necessary, the forensic examination of the phones did not need to occur within the warrant's entry window, and there was no evidence of deliberate deception by police.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiff's action for want of jurisdiction, the defendants sought their costs.

The plaintiff argued she should not pay costs because she had offered to discontinue the action and the defendants demanded an overly broad release.

The court awarded the Toronto Parking Authority $20,000 in partial indemnity costs.

However, the court declined to award costs to the individual defendant, finding that doing so would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given his reprehensible conduct that gave rise to the action.

The defendants brought motions to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statements of claim in two actions without leave to amend.

The claims arose from a failed transaction for the purchase of dental practices and sought a total of $90 million in damages against various professional advisors, family members, and employers of the intended purchasers.

The court found the pleadings to be scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting they were replete with irrelevant historical facts, inappropriate definitions, and inflammatory allegations.

The court concluded the actions were commenced for the improper purpose of harassing the defendants and struck the claims without leave to amend, awarding substantial indemnity costs to the defendants.

Following a family law trial, the court issued an endorsement to resolve issues raised in written submissions regarding the calculation of child support and costs.

The court determined the appropriate formula for calculating support when one child is entitled to 100 percent of the Guidelines amount and another to 25 percent.

The court dismissed the respondent's requests for further credits towards education expenses.

As the successful party whose offer to settle was close to the final judgment, the applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $17,000.

The applicant husband, an airline pilot, brought a motion to vary or stay temporary child and spousal support orders and to release funds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The husband had lost his employment due to a voluntary leave of absence for immigration purposes, followed by pandemic-related layoffs and the onset of tinnitus.

The court found that the husband met the test for an interim variation, as he currently had no income and was not intentionally underemployed given the pandemic and his medical condition.

The court suspended the husband's support obligations on an interim basis and ordered the release of $35,000 to each party from the matrimonial home proceeds.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs as the successful party.

The court reviewed the costs outlines, noted the motion was of average complexity, and found the amounts sought by both parties to be reasonable.

The court fixed the costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff at $13,390, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The plaintiff developer brought an action for breach of contract arising from an aborted sale of a subdivision house, and the defendant purchaser alleged undue influence.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment.

Following cross-examinations, both parties agreed the factual issues were discrete and appropriate for summary judgment.

The court agreed, scheduled the summary judgment motion for a half-day hearing, and established a timetable for the remaining steps, including a refusals motion.

The defendant Bolderson proposed to bring a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and the co-defendant's crossclaim arising from a motor vehicle accident.

A previous judge scheduled the motion but expressed concern about its appropriateness given the delivery of jury notices and the potential that it would not resolve all issues.

Following a case conference, the court directed the matter to proceed to the scheduled summary judgment motion.

Three actions were brought arising out of a water loss incident.

The defendant sought a timetable for the conduct of the actions due to the complexity of scheduling examinations for discovery with multiple parties.

The court directed the defendant to provide information regarding the ownership and maintenance of the water heater to determine if Enercare or Reliance Home Comfort are proper parties.

The case conference was adjourned to establish the timetable and determine the status of the actions against the water heater companies.

The court also indicated a willingness to order the three actions to be tried together upon consent of the parties.

The applicant landlord sought a declaration regarding its rights under a commercial condominium declaration after its tenant, a dentist, purchased an adjacent unit and purported to transfer the exclusive use designation for a dental clinic to the new unit.

The court applied the nemo dat principle, holding that the tenant could only consent to the transfer of the exclusive use for the remaining duration of his lease, protecting the landlord's premium-paid exclusivity.