Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The moving party, Seabrook Bros.

Mechanical Ltd., applied under s. 50.1(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to revise the Proposal Trustee's $0 valuation of its construction lien security against North House Foods Ltd.'s leasehold interest.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Seabrook failed to demonstrate that the security had any realizable value on a forced sale, despite expert reports suggesting value to the debtor.

The court emphasized that the valuation was not about the debt itself, but the enforceability and net recovery from the collateral, considering impediments like lease assignment restrictions and the theoretical nature of realizing on such security in a proposal context.

The plaintiff, a rideshare driver, commenced a proposed class action alleging that Lyft drivers are employees and entitled to protections under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The defendants moved to stay the action in favour of arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Act, 1991, relying on the arbitration agreement in their Terms of Service.

The plaintiff argued the arbitration agreement was inaccessible, uncertain, unconscionable, contrary to public policy, and an unlawful contracting out of employment standards.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the arbitration agreement accessible, valid, and enforceable.

The court granted the motion and stayed the proposed class action in favour of arbitration.

The Mortgagee Plaintiffs sought summary judgment to enforce a syndicated loan and mortgage against the Joseph-Walker Parties, who defaulted.

The Joseph-Walker Parties alleged fraud by other defendants and, later, by the Mortgagee Plaintiffs themselves, and sought to adjourn the motion.

The court denied the adjournment, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the Mortgagee Plaintiffs' claims or the fraud allegations against them.

Summary judgment was provisionally granted for the Mortgagee Plaintiffs, including payment of the outstanding loan amount, possession, and writs of possession, conditional on adding seven non-party mortgagees to the action to ensure they are bound by the order.

The court also addressed the consolidation of related proceedings and the principles of partial summary judgment.

The applicant landlord sought a declaration that it had the right to early terminate a commercial lease and an order for the respondent tenant to vacate.

The lease, originally from 1994, had been extended and amended multiple times.

The dispute centered on whether a landlord's early termination right, present in previous lease iterations and linked to the tenant's right of first refusal, continued to apply under the most recent "Lease Amendment and Extension Agreement" from 2016, which did not explicitly mention the provision.

The court found that the landlord failed to demonstrate a continuing right of early termination during the current lease term (2022-2027), as the specific language of the agreements limited this right to particular renewal terms that had expired.

The application was dismissed, allowing the tenant to remain in occupation until the lease's expiry in 2027.

This endorsement addresses costs submissions following a decision on competing pleading motions in a class action.

The plaintiffs were substantially successful in their motion to amend pleadings, while the defendants' parallel motion to strike was largely unsuccessful.

Despite the plaintiffs' success, the court declined to award costs to either party, citing the public importance of the litigation, which involves exploring the boundaries of constitutionally protected protest rights versus the rights of individual citizens to seek compensation for disruption.

The plaintiffs sought an urgent motion for an interim injunction against a former owner for alleged breach of a non-solicitation agreement.

The court, having found urgency, held a case conference to establish a timetable for the motion, emphasizing the need for a full record and encouraging settlement.

A schedule for serving motion records, responding affidavits, cross-examinations, and filing materials was set, with the motion for interim injunction returnable on June 15, 2023.

The defendant Million Dollar Round Table (MDRT) brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim against it for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, or alternatively, for dismissal due to delay.

The plaintiff alleged negligence against MDRT, a voluntary trade association, based on a fraudulent letter from a former member bearing the MDRT emblem.

The court found that the claim failed to plead sufficient material facts to establish a novel duty of care owed by MDRT to the plaintiff, particularly for pure economic loss.

Despite the defendant's delay in bringing the motion and having filed a statement of defence, the court granted the motion to strike without leave to amend, citing the futility of the claim, the plaintiff's inaction in advancing the case, and the principle of proportionality in simplified procedure actions.

The plaintiff subcontractor sued the defendant general contractor for unpaid invoices and extra work performed on a municipal renovation project.

The defendant refused to pay, alleging the plaintiff mismanaged the project, caused significant delays, and performed deficient work, and brought a counterclaim for costs to complete and rectify the work.

The court found the defendant's principal witness lacked credibility and that the defendant had orally approved the extra work, establishing a quantum meruit claim.

The court dismissed the counterclaim, finding no evidence of deficient work and noting the defendant failed to provide contractual notices of default.

The plaintiff was awarded $188,514.62 and its construction lien was declared valid.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for negligence, occupier's liability, and breach of the Liquor Licence Act after the plaintiff suffered a severe spinal injury in a mosh pit at a heavy metal concert.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court found no evidence that the injury was reasonably foreseeable or that the defendants breached the standard of care, noting that security guards were present and actively monitoring the crowd.

The court granted the summary judgment motion and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff successfully defeated the defendants' summary judgment motion in a condominium construction defect case.

The plaintiff had previously served an offer to settle the motion on terms more favourable than the outcome.

The court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs of $42,812.79, finding the time spent reasonable given the complexity and volume of materials.

The court ordered these costs to be set off against $26,879.89 the plaintiff owed the defendants from previous motions, resulting in a net payment of $15,932.90 to the plaintiff.

The applicant sought orders for outstanding financial disclosure from the respondent and for interim disbursements to fund an expert income analysis.

The court found the respondent had consistently failed to provide complete, accurate, and timely financial disclosure, misrepresenting his income, assets, and liabilities over several years of litigation.

The court ordered the respondent to provide extensive outstanding disclosure within 30 days, including details of retirement plans, corporate entities, tax forms, and financial records from previous divorce proceedings.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay $28,930.00 in interim disbursements to the applicant to cover the expert's fees for completing the income analysis.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend her Statement of Claim to seek recovery of statutory accident benefits, a declaration of catastrophic impairment, and punitive damages.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the Superior Court lost jurisdiction over new accident benefit disputes on April 1, 2016, when jurisdiction was transferred to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed amendments were a particularization and redrafting of the original pre-transition claim, not a new proceeding.

The court deferred the issue of whether the plaintiff failed to mediate the specific benefits prior to commencing the action to the trial judge.

This family law proceeding involved an application for child support, spousal support, and access.

The court addressed the striking of the applicant's pleadings due to non-disclosure, finding that the applicant had largely complied and that a previous order to strike did not meet the requirements of Kovachis v. Kovachis.

The court imputed an income of $65,000 per year to the self-employed applicant for child support purposes, ordered retroactive child support of $42,700, and ongoing child support of $966 per month, plus 65% of Section 7 expenses.

The respondent's claim for spousal support was denied based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court also granted the respondent the ability to apply for children's passports and travel with the children without the applicant's consent, subject to providing an itinerary.

The applicant's request for a more flexible access schedule was denied, and the existing alternate weekend access schedule was maintained.

Wrigley Canada Inc. (moving party) sought an interim injunction and an inspection order under Rule 32 to conduct its own environmental testing on the adjacent property owned by Metrus Properties (responding party).

Metrus had sued Wrigley alleging contamination from Wrigley's property and had refused Wrigley access for testing, subsequently beginning excavation work.

The court granted the injunction and inspection order, finding that Wrigley had demonstrated a serious issue to be tried, would suffer irreparable harm if denied access to conduct independent testing before excavation altered the site, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the order, especially given Metrus's refusal of access and non-disclosure of excavation plans.

In a medical malpractice jury trial, the court determined whether long‑term disability (LTD) and Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits should be deducted from damages for past and future income loss.

The plaintiff suffered a stroke after being discharged from hospital and claimed permanent inability to work.

The court held that CPP disability benefits are not deductible from income loss awards.

However, applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s guidance in IBM Canada Limited v. Waterman, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s employer‑funded LTD benefits functioned as indemnity for wage loss and should be deducted from any jury award to avoid double recovery.

The jury was therefore instructed to deduct LTD payments from both past and future wage loss damages.

The plaintiff hospital sued the general contractor (Compass) and subcontractor (Black Creek) for water damage caused during a kitchen renovation.

Black Creek brought a motion under Rule 21 to determine whether Compass's cross-claim against it for contribution and indemnity was barred by the 'covenant to insure' in the general contract.

Black Creek argued the tort immunity principle barred the cross-claim for damage to the entire hospital.

Compass argued the immunity only applied to the 'work' (the kitchen project) and not the adjacent property (the rest of the hospital).

The court held that the covenant to insure and the builder's risk policy only covered the project site (the kitchen), not the entire hospital.

Therefore, Compass's cross-claim against Black Creek for damages outside the kitchen was not barred.

An elderly pedestrian brought an action against a municipality after tripping on a raised sidewalk slab and sustaining serious injuries including a fractured hip requiring replacement.

The court found that a height differential of 15/16 inch between sidewalk slabs constituted a condition of non-repair under s.44 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The municipality failed to follow its own annual inspection policy and did not establish a statutory defence.

The court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence regarding the measurement of the defect and rejected conflicting measurements from municipal witnesses.

Liability was established but the plaintiff was found 30% contributorily negligent for failing to watch where she was walking.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s motion to set aside an order dismissing the action, the court addressed the defendants’ claim for costs.

The defendants sought over $27,000 in legal fees and additional disbursements, relying on extensive work performed by multiple lawyers, clerks, and students.

The court accepted that the motion’s outcome was predictable and found the staffing and hours claimed by the defendants excessive given the straightforward nature of the motion.

While acknowledging that law firms may allocate work among multiple professionals, the court held that the losing party should not bear the costs of training junior counsel.

Costs were fixed at $13,000 payable by the plaintiff.

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to undergo psychological testing as part of a defence medical examination in a civil action alleging historical assaults during a domestic relationship.

The defendant argued the testing would assist a psychiatrist retained by the defence in forming an opinion and responding to the plaintiff’s psychological expert evidence.

The court held that additional defence medical examinations are discretionary and require clear and compelling evidence demonstrating necessity.

The proposed testing was characterized by the defence experts only as helpful or beneficial rather than necessary.

The court also considered the risk of creating an imbalance in expert evidence and the potential delay to the scheduled trial.

The motion for psychological testing was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a negligence action against a municipality after stepping into a crack or pothole in a municipal parking stall and sustaining a knee injury.

The municipality argued that it met the regulatory minimum maintenance standards for municipal highways and that the roadway was intended primarily for vehicular traffic.

The court held that where a municipality creates designated parking stalls, it is reasonably foreseeable that pedestrians will walk between parked vehicles to access the curb and sidewalk.

The municipality failed to prove it complied with inspection requirements under the Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways and failed to inspect the area used by pedestrians.

The longitudinal pothole created an unreasonable risk of harm and the municipality was found liable.