SCJ 2021

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing for default judgment in the amount of $105,000 after the defendant failed to respond to the amended statement of claim.

The plaintiff had purchased a minority shareholding interest in the defendant's business, which was permanently closed shortly after.

The court exercised its discretion under Rule 19.02(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to order the plaintiff to serve the defendant with the motion record and endorsement, adjourning the matter for 30 days to allow the defendant to respond.

The plaintiffs brought a motion pursuant to Rule 7.08 for approval of a settlement of the claims brought by the minor plaintiffs arising from a motor vehicle accident where the stepfather/father was struck by a vehicle while crossing a pedestrian crosswalk.

The proposed settlement was for $150,000, with $2,500 allocated to each minor plaintiff.

The court considered the liability risks, including the likelihood of contributory negligence and the application of the Family Law Act deductible.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minor plaintiffs, and approved the settlement.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury due to the suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

After being advised by the court that a non-jury trial could proceed in March 2022 while a jury trial would be scheduled for June 2022, the plaintiff withdrew the motion.

No costs were ordered.

At a trial management conference, the self-represented defendant requested an adjournment of the peremptory trial date, citing medical issues and lack of counsel.

The court declined to entertain the request without a formal motion on notice.

The court also ordered counsel of record for the corporate defendants, who failed to attend the conference without explanation, to appear at the commencement of trial to show cause why costs should not be awarded against him personally.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a defamation counterclaim brought by one of the defendants.

The court convened a case conference to determine whether partial summary judgment was appropriate, applying the factors from Malik v. Attia.

The court declined to schedule the summary judgment motion, finding that it would not make the proceeding appreciably cheaper and that there was a risk of inconsistent findings because the main action and the counterclaim shared factual issues regarding allegations of fraud.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant tenant for damages caused by flooding, relying on the lease's insurance and indemnity clauses.

The defendant requested a case conference to argue that summary judgment was inappropriate because a third-party action against its subtenant would continue, risking inconsistent findings.

The court allowed the summary judgment motion to proceed, finding it proportionate and unlikely to result in inconsistent findings, as the third party had not defended the main action and would be bound by its outcome.

The court adjourned the motion to allow the third party to retain counsel and the defendant to conduct cross-examinations.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion for summary judgment.

At a case conference, the parties agreed not to proceed with the summary judgment motion at this time and consented to a timetable for mediation, documentary discovery, and oral discovery.

The court established the timetable and remained seized of any scheduling issues, noting it was too early to determine if a streamlined trial procedure would be appropriate.

The applicant sought to schedule a date for the hearing of an Application claiming $120,000 in damages for repair costs to trucks and loss of income.

The applicant argued the matter could proceed under Rule 14.05(3)(h) as there were unlikely to be material facts in dispute.

The court declined to schedule the Application, holding that a proceeding to recover damages arising out of negligence or breach of contract should be brought by Action, not Application.

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing for default judgment against the defendant.

The plaintiff had invested $105,000 for a 7% interest in the defendant's business based on representations about its profitability.

The business closed shortly after the investment, and the defendant failed to return the funds as required by their agreements.

The court found the defendant liable for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation, awarding the plaintiff $105,000 for the return of the investment, $28,050 in monthly compensation, and $7,000 in costs.

A case conference was held to determine if there were any issues with the timetable for an upcoming motion to determine the legal capacity of William MacLeod.

The court found that the steps set out in the timetable had taken place, no issues arose during cross-examinations requiring immediate attention, and the parties were on track for the scheduled hearing.

The court also directed that issues raised by Mr. MacLeod in a letter could be addressed at the motion itself.

The plaintiff invested $100,000 in a mortgage syndication administered by the defendant corporation.

The defendant, acting as the plaintiff's agent, discharged the mortgage on the original project lands and transferred it to another property without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent.

The plaintiff lost her investment when the related companies entered CCAA proceedings.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court found that while the defendant was not a borrower obligated to repay the loan, it breached the subscription agreement by transferring the mortgage without authorization.

The plaintiff was awarded damages of $81,250, representing her initial investment less interest payments received.

The applicant, charged with several driving and weapons offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 28 months and 10 days, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for matters in the Superior Court of Justice.

The court found that the defence did not take meaningful and sustained steps to expedite the proceedings, nor did the case take markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who was previously convicted of fraud, brought an application seeking a declaration that s. 380(1) of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional because it is silent on the mens rea for the offence, allegedly violating the Charter.

The court held a preliminary hearing to determine standing and abuse of process.

The court found that the applicant lacked private interest standing because his conviction was final and the issue was moot for him.

The court also found he lacked public interest standing because the application did not raise a serious justiciable issue and he did not have a genuine interest.

Finally, the court dismissed the application as an abuse of process, finding it amounted to a collateral attack on his prior criminal conviction.

The applicant challenged the administration of his mother's estate by his sisters, the respondent executors.

The deceased was a hoarder, and the executors spent significant time cleaning and repairing her house to prepare it for sale.

Although the Will prohibited executor compensation, the court awarded the respondents $29,250 for their physical labour, finding it fell outside normal executor duties and significantly benefited the estate.

The court also approved the respondents' out-of-pocket expenses and found their method of distributing personal effects was fair.

The plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action was dismissed on consent after it was determined that, as a unionized employee, his claims were governed by a collective agreement and could not be adjudicated in court.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $46,544.75.

The court found the requested costs excessive given the straightforward nature of the jurisdictional issue and the plaintiff's likely impecuniosity.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 all-inclusive.

The parties attended a family law case conference.

The respondent husband revealed for the first time at the conference that he and his partners had sold their business the previous day, despite having negotiated the sale for five months.

The applicant wife sought leave to retain her own Chartered Business Valuator to prepare a comprehensive valuation of the respondent's business interest, which the respondent opposed on the basis that they had previously jointly retained a valuator who provided a calculation valuation.

The court granted the applicant leave to retain her own expert, finding that the respondent failed to comply with his financial disclosure obligations and that the previous calculation valuation provided little assurance of accuracy.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the conference due to his late disclosure, with the amount to be determined.

The moving party, a condominium unit owner, brought a pre-emptive motion under Rule 25.11 to strike the condominium corporation's Notice of Application and the supporting affidavit.

The underlying application sought to amend the condominium declaration to correct an allegedly inequitable allocation of common expenses.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the Notice of Application, finding it pleaded a reasonable issue.

The court partially granted the motion to strike the affidavit, expunging specific paragraphs containing inadmissible hearsay and scandalous statements, but left the majority of the evidentiary objections for the application judge to determine on a full record.

The moving party defendant sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims of fraudulent conveyance and conspiracy.

The plaintiff alleged her former husband fraudulently conveyed shares in a company holding real property to his brother (the moving party) to defeat her family law judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the relationships among the defendants, credibility, and whether the ten-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act applied to the fraudulent conveyance claim.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving and failing to stop for police, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his identification as the driver.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge mistakenly attributed evidence to an independent witness who had not actually identified the driver, but argued there was no substantial wrong.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court found that the remaining identification evidence was not overwhelming and, given the frailties of eye-witness identification, the error was significant.

The appeal was granted and a new trial was ordered.

The defendant trampoline park moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury claim based on a signed waiver of liability.

The plaintiff suffered a knee injury while playing trampoline dodgeball and alleged the defendant was negligent in failing to supervise the game and follow its own injury policies.

The court found that the plaintiff had explicitly signed a waiver that clearly excluded liability for negligence, including the failure of employees to give complete instructions or protect participants from risks.

The court held the waiver was enforceable and dismissed the action.