Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The plaintiffs, Lee Anthony Delfino and Standing O Entertainment Group Inc., sued the Intercounty Baseball League and its commissioner, John Kastner, for breach of contract and negligence after their team, the Brantford Red Sox, was eliminated from the 2016 playoffs.

The claim arose from the commissioner’s decision to allow a Toronto Maple Leafs player, Mike Wagner, to participate in the playoffs despite allegations he was ineligible under league rules.

The court found that the league’s governance documents delegated final authority on eligibility to the commissioner, and that his decision was made in good faith and within his discretion.

The court dismissed the claim, holding that there was no breach of contract or negligence, and that the process followed was procedurally fair.

The court considered costs following a summary judgment motion in a copyright dispute between the Lakehead District School Board and Anna Mauro o/a 807 ISC Thunder Bay.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing complete success and an entitlement to elevated costs.

The court found the plaintiff was not wholly successful, as punitive damages were not awarded and no valid Rule 49 offer was served.

The court determined the claimed costs were excessive and not proportional, ultimately awarding the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $8,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The Lakehead District School Board (the Board) brought a motion for summary judgment against Anna Mauro, operating as 807 ISC Thunder Bay, alleging copyright and moral rights infringement.

The Board claimed Mauro produced and sold clothing featuring names, mascots, logos, and colour schemes of its schools without authorization.

Mauro argued the works were not registered, not original, and her designs were sufficiently different.

The court found that copyright subsisted with the Board, was infringed by Mauro, and granted declarations, a permanent injunction, delivery up of infringing works, and damages representing disgorgement of profits.

The Board's claim for punitive damages was dismissed.

The applicant mother sought an interim variation of a final parenting order and updated child support.

The respondent father sought summary judgment to dismiss the mother's motion or narrow the issues.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including the children's maturing views, the mother's non-compliance with residency restrictions, and significant school absenteeism for the younger children while in the mother's care.

The court granted summary judgment, varying the final order to establish primary care for each child based on their best interests and school attendance, and adjusted child support accordingly.

The Corporation of the Municipality of Greenstone sought declarations and permanent injunctions against the respondent for contravening its Zoning By-law, Property Standards By-law, and Clean Yards By-law on two properties.

The municipality alleged the properties were being used as an unlicensed salvage yard, accumulating derelict vehicles, debris, and waste, posing health and safety hazards.

The respondent did not appear at the hearing.

The court found clear and ongoing breaches of all by-laws and granted the requested declarations and permanent injunctions, ordering the respondent to bring the properties into compliance and pay costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to the Superior Court of Justice for the appointment of an umpire to resolve a dispute with Intact Insurance Company regarding the cost of replacing their collapsed rural home and Quonset hut.

The appraisers appointed by each party could not agree on a joint umpire.

The court considered the criteria for umpire selection under the Insurance Act, emphasizing impartiality and breadth of experience over local residence or travel costs.

The court appointed the plaintiffs' nominee, Glenn Gibson, due to his extensive experience as an umpire for both insureds and insurers, and awarded costs to the plaintiffs.

This decision addresses the final stages of a corporate winding-up application for Norall Group Inc. and Norall Group Contracting Inc., including the passing of accounts and the determination of outstanding costs.

The court resolved disputes regarding an interim dividend and an interim distribution order, finding that a respondent shareholder was not entitled to a priority distribution due to significant outstanding costs owed to the applicants.

The corporations were ordered wound up, and the applicants were appointed trustees to complete the process, with the respondent's shareholder entitlement deemed nil due to her outstanding liabilities.

The applicant, Jacqueline Pommer, sought final orders for ongoing and retroactive spousal support from the respondent, Joseph Caron, who was noted in default and did not appear.

The court, applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, determined the respondent's income from 2019 to 2023 and ordered him to pay significant retroactive spousal support totaling $122,704, along with ongoing monthly support of $2,603.

The applicant's other claims, including equalization of net family property and child support, were abandoned and dismissed.

The parents (P.N.R. and K.R.) appealed a summary judgment finding that their children were in need of protection due to physical harm, as determined by a motions judge.

The appeal raised issues regarding fresh evidence, the legal test for physical harm, the application of summary judgment rules, and procedural fairness.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the original finding that the children had suffered physical harm.

It found no error in the motions judge's application of the law, including the standard for physical harm and the use of summary judgment powers to weigh evidence and assess credibility.

The court also rejected claims of procedural unfairness and ineffective counsel.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the respondents' unsuccessful motion to dismiss an application.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, citing delays caused by the respondents.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity, finding the conduct did not meet the threshold for reprehensible behavior.

Instead, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $3,000, inclusive, payable by the respondents to the applicant, including costs for a necessary case conference.

The plaintiff, the Ontario Securities Commission, moved for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the transfer of a Welland home from the defendants, a husband and wife, to the wife alone was a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat creditors.

The husband owed an outstanding fine to the plaintiff for breaches of the Securities Act.

The court found that the transfer was made for nominal consideration and with the acknowledged intent to protect the property from creditors.

The court granted summary judgment, declaring the conveyance fraudulent and void, and alternatively found that the husband retained an interest in the property via resulting and constructive trusts.

The moving parties, Antonio Ferrara (in trust) and Astoria Homes Inc., sought to strike a third-party claim brought by the Marcheses against Antonio Ferrara in his personal capacity.

The third-party claim was issued without consent or leave of the court, contrary to Rule 29.02.

The court found that while an irregularity occurred, leave would have been granted had it been sought, as no prejudice to the plaintiffs was demonstrated.

Furthermore, the irregularity was cured by the moving parties taking fresh steps in the litigation after becoming aware of the third-party claim.

The application to strike was dismissed.

The applicant sought sole guardianship of Juliet Eastlyn Hamilton for personal care under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, to implement a "Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR) direction and manage end-of-life care.

The co-guardian, Nicole Hamilton, and Juliet's spouse, Trevor Hamilton, opposed this, citing Juliet's religious beliefs and previous wishes for all possible steps to prolong life.

The court granted sole guardianship to the applicant, finding that his request was in Juliet's best interests based on objective medical evidence of her deteriorating health and constant pain, and that his intention was not to actively terminate life but to allow natural progression with a DNR.

The mother brought a motion to change child support retroactively, alleging the father's income had significantly increased and he failed to disclose it.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking to terminate his child support obligations and for child support from the mother, as well as a restraining order.

The court dismissed the mother's claim for retroactive child support, finding she lacked a reasonable excuse for the delay and that the father's conduct was not blameworthy, given the informal evolution of parenting responsibilities and financial contributions.

The father's request for a restraining order was also dismissed due to dated evidence.

The court continued the interim child support order payable by the mother to the father and terminated the father's prior child support obligations.

Following a successful application for rectification of the Land Titles Register to reflect a historical right-of-way, the applicant sought costs.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded because the registration omission resulted from an administrative error and because the applicant had not previously provided notice of reliance on the right-of-way registered under the Registry Act.

The court rejected these submissions and held that the successful party was entitled to its costs.

The applicant’s bill of costs was found to be fair and reasonable and was granted.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing a collection action as statute-barred under the two‑year limitation period, the defendants sought costs of $17,047.26 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the governing principles under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality.

The judge found the claimed amount excessive given the simple nature of the statute‑bar issue and the approximately 90 hours of legal work performed.

The court also noted that the defendants’ conduct had fostered the impression that payment would eventually be made and that they had already received insurance compensation related to the underlying loss.

Costs were therefore reduced and fixed at a lower amount.

Creditors of an undischarged bankrupt commenced an action under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act challenging transactions allegedly intended to defeat creditors, including the redemption of special shares and alleged diversion of income.

Certain defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing under the existing s. 38 order and that the limitation period had expired.

The court held that any procedural irregularity in commencing the claim without a specific s. 38 authorization could be cured nunc pro tunc and that the limitation period had not expired because the material facts were discovered later.

The court further found that the “imputed income” allegations raised genuine issues requiring credibility assessments that could not be resolved on summary judgment.

Counsel for the parties attended before the court for the signing of orders implementing Minutes of Settlement resolving the proceeding.

The court confirmed that the orders, issued on consent, concluded the litigation between the parties.

The court further clarified that investors associated with the plaintiff corporation retained any rights or claims they might have against the corporation regarding their investments.

However, those investors were barred from bringing further proceedings challenging the authority of the trustee, the FTA, or the corporation to settle the action.

Directions were given for copies of the orders, supporting affidavit, and the endorsement to be sent by registered mail to each investor.

The defendant moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) and (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that the plaintiffs were non-residents of Ontario and allegedly lacked assets in the jurisdiction.

The court found the claim—alleging an improvident sale of property at auction for substantially less than a prior offer and appraised value—was not frivolous or vexatious.

Although the plaintiffs asserted that assets in Texas owned through a corporation were sufficient to satisfy any costs award, the court concluded that enforcement against those assets would not be straightforward because the property was owned by a non-resident corporation rather than the plaintiffs directly.

The court therefore ordered security for costs with conditions designed to preserve the corporate shares and underlying property as potential security for any future costs award.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiffs for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation and dismissal of a defendant’s cross-motion to strike affidavit evidence, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs sought partial-indemnity costs supported by a detailed bill of costs.

The defendant argued that costs should be reserved for the trial judge due to limited financial resources, potential indemnification rights, and the plaintiffs’ CCAA protection.

The court held that impecuniosity, potential indemnification, and speculative trial costs considerations were not valid reasons to deny or delay a costs award.

Partial-indemnity costs were awarded to the successful moving parties.