Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The court considered a motion by the respondent, Robert Paul Ireland, to set aside a default judgment granted in favour of the Ontario Federation of All Terrain Vehicle Clubs.

The judgment, issued after Ireland failed to attend the hearing, declared certain statements made by him on Facebook to be defamatory and ordered their removal.

Ireland argued he did not attend due to accident, mistake, or insufficient notice.

The court found that he was properly served, aware of the proceedings, and intentionally chose not to participate.

The motion to set aside the judgment was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought to amend her claim to proceed under Rule 76 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, capping damages at $200,000, after the action had been set down for a jury trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the prejudice to the defendant too great and the timing of the amendment to be an abuse of process.

The decision discusses the availability of accommodations for disabled litigants, the prejudice inherent in late procedural changes, and the tactical nature of the plaintiff’s request.

This decision concerns an anti-SLAPP motion brought by the defendants, Trinitee Okoye and Olivia Singaye, seeking to stay or dismiss a defamation action by the plaintiffs, Reynolds Okoh, Axel Mensah, and 2357392 Ontario Inc. o/a The Palace Ottawa.

The court found that the impugned social media posts did not constitute expression on a matter of public interest within the meaning of section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Even if the threshold were met, the court held that the action had substantial merit and the defences of justification and fair comment were unlikely to succeed.

The motion was dismissed.

The court granted a motion to remove D. Kenneth Gibson and Gibson LLP as counsel of record for Wildpine Residence Inc. in a construction lien proceeding, due to Mr. Gibson's role as a key material witness at trial.

The decision addresses the conflict between a lawyer's role as advocate and as witness, and the need to preserve the integrity of the trial process.

The court found that the interests of justice required the removal of Mr. Gibson and his firm, and ordered Wildpine Residence Inc. to appoint alternative counsel within 60 days.

The plaintiff, Ojohome Canada Ltd. o/a Houseful, sought an interlocutory injunction or mandatory order to restore its access to live feed data from the Toronto Region MLS service provided by TRREB.

The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff did not meet the high threshold for a mandatory order and that damages would be an adequate remedy.

The decision discusses the contractual and regulatory context of MLS data access and the requirements for injunctive relief.

This decision concerns an application under the Partition Act regarding jointly owned property at 63 Hiscock Blvd., Scarborough, Ontario.

The applicant, Syed Azadar Bukhari, sought an order for sale of the property, which was opposed by the respondent, Nadia Muneeb Bukhari, on the basis of the applicant’s failure to contribute to carrying costs and alleged unjust enrichment.

The court reviewed the history of litigation between the parties, including prior judgments establishing joint ownership and financial obligations.

The court found that the applicant’s failure to pay could be remedied by adjustments on sale and did not amount to malicious or oppressive conduct.

The court ordered the sale of the property under supervision, with an accounting to determine amounts owing, and awarded costs to the applicant.

This costs decision follows the trial judgment in a motor vehicle insurance dispute.

The court addresses the adjustment of the judgment for a Pierringer Agreement, calculation of prejudgment interest, and the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The court finds that the net damages to be paid by Economical are $13,008.86, with prejudgment interest of $1,292.14, and costs awarded on the Small Claims Court scale, totaling $7,909.26.

The decision discusses the application of Rule 49 offers, proportionality, and the policy behind limiting costs where the claim could have been brought in Small Claims Court.

Intact Insurance Company appealed an arbitrator's decision that found a motorcycle passenger and driver were spouses under the Insurance Act, obliging Intact to pay accident benefits.

The passenger was in a committed five-year relationship with the driver but maintained a separate residence and was still married to another individual.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the arbitrator committed an extricable error of law by applying family law principles to the definition of 'spouse' for insurance purposes and by failing to adhere to the bright-line test requiring parties to have lived together in the same residence for three years to be considered spouses under the Insurance Act.

The court applied a correctness standard of review.

The plaintiff brought and subsequently abandoned a motion for summary judgment in a breach of contract action regarding renovation services.

The defendants sought costs for the abandoned motion forthwith.

The plaintiff argued costs should be deferred to trial as the work done would be useful later.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs forthwith, finding it unfair to defer costs to a trial that might not occur.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $5,713.50, as there was no evidence the plaintiff acted unreasonably or in bad faith to justify substantial indemnity costs.

The self-represented applicant brought an application seeking a declaration that various tax and municipal statutes violated her Charter rights, claiming $4 million in damages and tax refunds, and absolute title to her property free of taxes and laws.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the application to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting it relied on cherry-picked legal principles and ignored Section 1 of the Charter.

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

This is a costs ruling following motions where the respondent's motion to change an order was unsuccessful, and the applicant's motion to impute income and change child and spousal support was successful.

The City of Toronto also participated due to an assignment of arrears.

The court awarded the City of Toronto $5,000 in costs and the applicant $20,000 plus HST and disbursements for her solicitor's fees, and $2,000 plus HST and disbursements for her self-represented preparation time, finding the respondent's conduct unreasonable, particularly regarding financial disclosure and disregard for court orders.

The appellant (defendant at trial) appealed a Small Claims Court decision enforcing an early termination liquidated damages clause in a service contract with the respondent.

The appellant argued the clause, which required payment of 50 percent of the remaining contract value, was unreasonable.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the law.

The court affirmed that liquidated damages clauses are presumed enforceable and the onus rests on the party challenging the clause to demonstrate it is oppressive or unreasonable, which the appellant failed to do.

The Attorney General submitted that there be no order as to costs regarding the motion by Ontario to strike the claim.

The plaintiff did not take serious issue with this disposition.

The court ordered no costs on the motion.

The applicants, three police officers charged with sexual assault, sought to vary a sealing order to prohibit publication of information from an Information to Obtain (ITO) DNA warrants, arguing it was necessary to preserve trial fairness and prevent witness tainting and stigmatization.

The Crown supported the ban for consistency with a prior publication ban on conflict motion materials.

The media respondents opposed the ban.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the Dagenais/Mentuck test for a publication ban, which requires demonstrating a serious risk to the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by alternative measures, and that the salutary effects outweigh the deleterious effects on freedom of expression and public right to know.

The court emphasized the presumptive openness of warrant materials and the public interest in the investigation of police officers.

On a motion for security for costs, the moving defendant argued that Manitoba-resident plaintiffs should post security despite their purchase of adverse costs insurance.

The court held that the insurance policy was not equivalent to payment into court because coverage could be terminated and the proceeds could not be assigned, although the existence of the policy remained a mitigating factor.

Applying the justice-based inquiry under Rule 56.01, the court found the claim had some merit, the plaintiffs were financially constrained, and one plaintiff was a victim of criminal assaults arising from the same events.

In light of s. 4(2) of the Victims Bill of Rights and the circumstances as a whole, the motion was dismissed, subject to an order requiring notice if the policy was cancelled.

The respondent municipality was successful in defending an application and sought costs of $7,689.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued costs should be denied because the respondent introduced facts in its factum regarding the existence of private parks that were not included in the Agreed Statement of Facts.

The court rejected this argument, noting the applicants had addressed the issue and could have easily verified the public record prior to the hearing.

The court awarded the respondent its claimed costs of $7,689.00.

Commercial lease trial arising from a landlord's lockout of a restaurant tenant after disputes over rent arrears and operating-cost adjustments.

The court found the landlord had agreed to accept three post-dated cheques in satisfaction of arrears then outstanding, and that this agreement constituted an implied waiver of default, precluding unilateral termination of the lease on that basis.

The subsequent lockout and termination were therefore wrongful.

The tenant recovered damages for leasehold improvements, inventory, equipment, and overpayment of rent, while the landlord's counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured in a slip and fall on snow accumulated near a curb in a commercial parking lot.

The property owner and the snow removal contractor brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

Applying the framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the property owner's liability, as there were questions about the parking lot design and the adequacy of the snow removal plan.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the snow removal contractor, finding it had fulfilled its contractual obligations.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a motion for directions on how to implement a Consent Judgment.

The responding party argued that no costs should be awarded because the original Minutes of Settlement and Consent Judgment were deficient and failed to include necessary terms.

The court found that because the Consent Judgment was unclear and both parties failed to include terms on how to implement it, the motion was necessary.

The court ordered that both parties bear their own costs.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a costs order awarding substantial indemnity costs against it after its unsuccessful motion for summary judgment.

The underlying motion involved a dispute over an alleged energy supply contract and claims of overcharging, where the plaintiff’s affidavit evidence conflicted with recorded telephone evidence and cross-examination testimony.

The motions judge had found the plaintiff acted unreasonably by bringing the summary judgment motion prematurely and by advancing misleading and contradictory affidavit evidence, warranting substantial indemnity costs under Rules 20.06 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

On the leave motion, the court held the plaintiff failed to meet the criteria in Rule 62.02(4) because there was no conflicting authority and no reason to doubt the correctness of the costs ruling.

Leave to appeal the costs order was therefore refused.