Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

Following a trial where the non-settling defendant was found 100% liable, the court determined the full indemnity costs to be deducted from a $150,000 all-inclusive Pierringer settlement paid by the settling defendant.

The court allocated 25% of general fees and disbursements plus 100% of certain liability-specific disbursements to the settling defendant, resulting in a deduction of $74,934.33 from the settlement amount before applying the remainder to offset the jury's damage award.

The court assessed costs for three interlocutory motions in a first-party insurance claim.

The defendant was the successful party on a litigation privilege motion and responded to a motion abandoned by the plaintiff.

The court awarded the defendant $17,000 in fees plus disbursements for the first two motions, finding the amounts reasonable and proportionate, while ordering each party to bear their own costs for the third motion where success was divided.

The plaintiff bank obtained a without-notice Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property transferred from a guarantor to his former spouse, alleging a fraudulent conveyance to defeat enforcement of a loan guarantee.

The trustee in bankruptcy moved to extend the CPL, while the defendants sought its discharge.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the plaintiff did not fail to make full and frank disclosure.

Applying the Grefford test, the Court found a high probability the plaintiff would establish default, sufficient badges of fraud to raise a triable issue of fraudulent conveyance, and that the balance of convenience favoured extending the CPL.

The motion to extend was granted and costs were ordered in the cause.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff, a self-represented former patron of the defendant's pub, sought damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering, defamation, trespass, denial of service, and economic loss.

The court struck the Statement of Claim as it failed to plead sufficient material facts for the torts alleged.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend the claims for economic loss, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and defamation, but struck the claims for trespass and refusal to serve without leave, as they amounted to claims of discrimination properly falling under the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The defendant brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's action for unpaid legal fees.

The parties, both Michigan law firms, had entered into a co-counsel agreement containing a forum selection clause requiring disputes to be litigated in Michigan.

The agreement also contained a mandatory mediation clause.

The Court granted the motion and stayed the action, finding that the forum selection clause was valid and enforceable, that Ontario was not the appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, and that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the mandatory mediation condition precedent.

The defendants in a solicitor's negligence action brought a motion seeking a determination that the plaintiff's prior long-term disability settlement was deductible in the underlying tort action, an order removing the plaintiff's counsel, a declaration that counsel is a compellable witness, and disclosure of the terms of a partial settlement with one defendant.

The court held that the long-term disability settlement was a deductible collateral benefit under the 'silo approach'.

However, the court dismissed the motion to remove counsel, set aside the summons to counsel as premature, and held that no further disclosure of the partial settlement was required.

The plaintiffs, a lawyer and her firm, sought an interim injunction requiring the defendant to remove social media posts that had allegedly incited a campaign of online harassment and "review bombing" against them, following a dispute over the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The Superior Court of Justice found a strong prima facie case of internet harassment, concluding the defendant's conduct was outrageous and intended to cause emotional upset.

The court held that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without relief and the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The defendant was ordered to remove the posts pending interlocutory proceedings.

Following a successful defence against an application to terminate a commercial lease, the respondents sought substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant argued costs should be limited to partial indemnity.

The court found that although the respondents' settlement offers were not formal Rule 49 offers, they were sincere efforts to resolve the matter on terms as favourable as the judgment.

The court exercised its discretion to consider the offers and awarded elevated costs fixed at $20,000.

The respondent moving party brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike out the applicant's application concerning a settlement agreement and rent arrears.

The court found that it was not plain and obvious that the application would fail, as it raised issues regarding the interpretation of a settlement agreement.

The motion to strike was dismissed.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's 2020 motor vehicle accident claim for delay under Rules 24.01 and 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff failed to file an Affidavit of Documents, attend discoveries, or take meaningful steps to advance the proceeding for over six years.

The plaintiff also failed to file any affidavit evidence responding to the motion.

The Superior Court of Justice found the delay to be inordinate and inexcusable, and that it created a substantial risk that a fair trial was no longer possible.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed, with costs of $3,500 awarded to the defendants.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was wholly unsuccessful in his claim for personal injury damages arising from an arrest by security guards, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The plaintiff sought to be exempted from costs as a public interest litigant, which the court rejected due to his significant financial motive.

The defendants sought elevated costs, alleging the plaintiff's claims of racial profiling and excessive force were scandalous, but the court found the claims were arguable and supported by some evidence.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs fixed at $236,000.00.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking forfeiture of a $150,000 deposit after the defendant purchaser failed to close a commercial real estate transaction.

The defendant argued it could not obtain financing because the plaintiff failed to disclose that a major tenant, representing 30% of the property's income, had terminated its lease before the defendant waived the sole inspection condition.

The Court found that although the contract did not require disclosure and the principle of caveat emptor applied, the plaintiff breached the duty of honest performance by knowingly remaining silent about the lease termination to allow the condition to be waived.

The Court granted summary judgment in favour of the defendant, ordering the deposit returned.

Following a decision on two related oppression applications where the court found only one act of oppression by the respondent and declined to order a receiver, the parties submitted written costs submissions.

The court determined the respondents were more successful overall.

The court ordered costs of $50,000 payable to the individual respondent and $50,000 to the corporate respondents.

The moving party sought leave to amend her statement of defence in a defamation action 15 years after it was commenced to specifically plead the limitation periods under sections 5 and 6 of the Libel and Slander Act.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion, finding no presumption of non-compensable prejudice because the proposed amendment merely clarified a defence that was already generally pleaded.

The plaintiff, a start-up, sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to compel the defendants to hand over the source code and software assets needed to operate its business, and to prevent the defendants from exploiting them.

The individual defendant, a co-founder and the plaintiff's Chief Technology Officer, argued that his corporate entity owned the intellectual property, which pre-dated the plaintiff's incorporation.

The plaintiff relied on assignment agreements executed by the defendant.

The motion judge granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the assignment and employment status, irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business and reputation if denied access to the software, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs, suspended elected officials of a trade union, commenced civil actions against the union alleging procedural unfairness and other torts relating to their internal discipline.

The defendant unions moved to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court determined that the essential character of the dispute involved alleged discriminatory discipline and natural justice breaches within the union's internal disciplinary process.

The Court held that this subject matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, and dismissed the action.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to examine a second representative of the corporate defendant in a slip-and-fall action.

The plaintiffs sought to examine the employee who prepares planograms after discovering the initial representative had limited knowledge of them.

The motion was dismissed, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the initial representative was unwilling or unable to inform himself, or that a second examination was necessary to obtain satisfactory answers.

In an action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants moved to compel the plaintiff to attend independent medical examinations with both a physiatrist and a neuropsychologist.

The plaintiff agreed to the physiatrist but resisted the neuropsychologist.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion, finding that because the plaintiff claimed both physical and cognitive injuries, the defendants were entitled to examinations by experts qualified to assess those respective claims.

Following a finding of civil contempt for breaching a court order that restrained her from participating in the management of a corporation, the moving parties sought a 20-day period of incarceration as a penalty for the plaintiff.

The Superior Court of Justice declined to order incarceration, finding that the plaintiff had taken steps to purge her contempt and that her removal from the board of directors best served the purpose of ensuring compliance.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $20,000 in costs.

The defendants requested an order dismissing the plaintiffs' solicitor negligence claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the claim was duplicative of an active 2021 action and a 2025 assessment application.

The court found that the 2021 action against former counsel had settled, though formal dismissal documents were pending, and the assessment application did not make the current claim an abuse of process.

Concluding it was not a clear case for a summary dismissal under Rule 2.1, the court dismissed the defendants' motion and awarded costs to the plaintiffs.