Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages from the defendant for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for residential property.

The defendant failed to close the transaction due to inability to secure financing.

The defendant admitted breach but disputed the quantum of damages and alleged the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their losses.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the plaintiffs acted reasonably in mitigating damages and assessing damages based on the actual resale date.

The applicant, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), sought to register an Alberta judgment in Ontario without notice to the respondent.

The court found that CMHC failed to establish that the respondent was personally served with the "original action" (the Alberta application for a new judgment) and that the respondent did not appear or defend in that action.

Consequently, under s. 2(2) of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act (REJA), CMHC was required to give reasonable notice.

The application was adjourned, and CMHC was ordered to proceed on notice to the respondent, with the court also noting concerns regarding the quality of CMHC's affidavit evidence and the calculation of the judgment amount.

The applicant, a beneficiary of an estate, brought a motion for contempt against the respondent estate trustee for failing to provide an accounting of the estate as previously ordered by Justice R. Smith.

The court found the respondent in contempt due to his continued non-compliance and lack of explanation, emphasizing the egregious nature of an estate trustee's failure to account.

The court ordered the respondent to purge his contempt within 60 days by complying with the original order and to pay the applicant's costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The judge remained seized of the matter, warning of more serious sanctions if non-compliance continued.

The Estate Trustee of a deceased co-owner sought partition and sale of a property held as tenants in common with the deceased's three brothers.

The respondents failed to engage in discussions or respond to the application.

The court granted the application for partition and sale, affirming the prima facie right of an owner to such an order unless malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct is proven.

Due to the respondents' non-cooperation, the applicant was granted carriage of the sale, with the court dispensing with the need for respondents' consent or signatures for sale-related documents.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the jury notice and sever their action from a companion action arising from a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs argued that the case was too complex for a jury and that delay, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, warranted a judge-alone trial.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the jury notice, finding insufficient evidence of case-specific prejudice or that an earlier trial date would be available for a judge-alone trial.

The court also dismissed the motion for severance, emphasizing the need to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings under section 138 of the Courts of Justice Act and noting common issues between the actions.

During an application to set aside a condominium lien, the applicant's counsel was administratively suspended by the Law Society of Ontario.

The court convened a hearing to determine if it had jurisdiction to rule on the application and whether counsel should pay costs personally.

The court found it had jurisdiction to rule on the application as it was fully argued before the suspension was known.

The court ordered the applicant's counsel to personally pay $800 in costs to the respondent due to his failure to address the suspension promptly and communicate with the court, which caused unnecessary delay and expense.

A request to seal the endorsement was denied.

In an insolvency proceeding, a self-represented solicitor sought costs following partial success on an application determining his claim against the debtor’s estate.

The claimant requested full indemnity costs alleging improper conduct by the receiver and failure to engage in settlement discussions.

The court rejected those allegations and held that full indemnity costs were not justified.

However, because the claimant achieved a recovery significantly higher than the receiver’s proposed distribution, he was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court fixed fair and reasonable costs payable from the receivership estate.

The applicant mining company brought an application concerning mining royalty interests subject to contractual rights of first refusal.

After the respondent corporation dissolved and distributed its royalty interests to its principal shareholder, the applicant alleged that the transfer triggered the contractual rights of first refusal contained in two agreements governing mining royalties.

The court held that the dissolution and distribution of assets constituted a “transfer,” “grant,” or other disposition within the meaning of the agreements.

The respondent’s argument that the rights were only triggered by receipt of a bona fide third‑party purchase offer was rejected.

The court declared that the rights of first refusal were breached and granted declaratory and injunctive relief preventing enforcement of the royalty obligations.

In a motor vehicle collision action involving a police officer driver, co-defendants sought an order compelling a police officer witness to re-attend for cross-examination and to answer previously refused questions regarding internal police review reports assessing fault and potential charges.

The dispute concerned whether undisclosed internal police “tracking reports” prepared by senior officers reviewing the collision investigation were relevant and producible under Rule 30.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that relevance in discovery is broadly construed and that the senior officers’ assessments of fault formed part of the investigative process relating directly to the issue of liability.

The fact that the officer involved was not charged did not render the internal reports irrelevant.

The motion was granted and the police defendants were ordered to disclose the tracking report and permit further cross‑examination.

An insurer sought a determination whether an insured’s injury constituted an “accident” within the meaning of s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule under the Insurance Act.

The insured tripped over a curb in his residential parking garage after parking his vehicle and exiting it to wash it.

Applying the two-part test from appellate jurisprudence, the court considered whether the incident arose from the use or operation of an automobile and whether that use directly caused the impairment.

The court held that the vehicle was not being used or operated at the time of the incident and that the injury resulted from an intervening act unrelated to the vehicle.

Accordingly, the incident did not constitute an “accident” under the Schedule and the insured was not entitled to statutory accident benefits.

The defendants appealed a master's order compelling answers and document production arising from an examination for discovery in a commercial dispute involving alleged misuse of confidential information and solicitation of a former employer’s client.

The defendants argued the production order was based on unsubstantiated pleadings, speculation regarding misuse of confidential information, and the discredited doctrine of inevitable disclosure.

The court held that relevance for discovery is determined by the pleadings and that the allegations in the statement of claim sufficiently grounded the requested discovery.

The master properly exercised discretion in balancing proportionality and determining that the information sought was relevant.

The appeal was dismissed.

In a certified class action involving former automobile dealers whose franchises were terminated during the 2009 automotive industry restructuring, the defendants sought production of documents relating to legal advice the representative plaintiff received from its own lawyer when signing wind‑down agreements.

The moving parties argued that solicitor‑client privilege had been waived and that the advice was relevant to issues such as causation and damages.

The court held that although privilege regarding advice about the wind‑down agreement had been expressly waived during earlier cross‑examination, relevance for discovery in a class proceeding prior to the common issues trial is confined to the certified common issues.

Because the certified issues focused on the defendants’ conduct under provincial franchise legislation and alleged professional duties, and did not require examination of the individual legal advice received by class members, the requested documents were not relevant at this stage.

The motions to compel production were therefore dismissed.

Following the dismissal of a plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment in a franchise dispute, the court addressed the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs relying on two offers to settle, but the court found that neither offer triggered enhanced cost consequences because their conditions were not met.

The court held that the appropriate scale was partial indemnity throughout.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01(1) and the Court of Appeal guidance in Boucher, the court fixed costs at $22,000 all-inclusive payable by the unsuccessful moving parties.

Supplementary endorsement addressing distribution of funds held in trust following a prior decision determining entitlement between vendor and purchaser in a real estate transaction.

The court had previously invited written submissions regarding entitlement to GST included in the purchase price and the cost of steel plates allegedly lost after delivery to the job-site.

After reviewing the additional submissions, the court concluded that the purchase price under the agreement of purchase and sale was $500,000 plus GST and that GST had been properly paid.

The court also accepted that $7,500 should be deducted for the steel plates.

The court directed the trust funds to be distributed primarily to the vendor with a smaller amount to the purchasers and added a corporate purchaser nunc pro tunc as a co‑plaintiff/applicant.

Following the dismissal of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The defendants had succeeded on one of four principal issues, resulting in partial success that justified a reduction in the plaintiff’s recoverable costs.

The court considered the proportional success of the parties and the relative time and resources expended by counsel.

Applying reductions for both partial success and excessive docketed time, the court fixed costs at a fair and reasonable amount under Rule 57.01.

On a consent motion in a proposed class action concerning ticket resale practices, the court considered certification for settlement purposes and approval of a negotiated settlement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action alleged that the defendants’ primary and secondary market ticket sales violated the Ticket Speculation Act through resale pricing and related practices.

The court held that the criteria for certification under s. 5(1) were satisfied, including the existence of an identifiable class and common issue relating to whether the defendants breached the statute.

The proposed settlement provided refunds of $36 per ticket to class members and required changes to the defendants’ ticket resale website practices.

The court concluded the settlement and the requested contingency fee arrangement were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recover amounts owing under a loan agreement.

The defendant admitted the loan in his statement of defence but alleged he signed the agreement under duress and without understanding its legal ramifications.

The defendant did not appear on the motion despite service by mail and email, which the court validated under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the evidentiary record established the debt.

Summary judgment was granted for the outstanding loan amount with contractual interest and substantial-indemnity costs.

In an estate dispute involving a notice of objection to probate and related litigation steps, the respondents brought a motion seeking various relief including costs.

The litigation stalled after earlier directions orders requiring documentary production, potential discovery, and appointment of an estate trustee during litigation, none of which were meaningfully completed.

The applicants later attempted to withdraw the matter without costs after concluding the litigation was not economically viable.

The court held that the respondents were the successful party but limited their recoverable costs to the period prior to the applicants’ offer to withdraw without costs.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis with a reduction reflecting both parties’ conduct and failure to efficiently advance the litigation.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a breach of contract action on the basis that the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The dispute centred on discoverability and when a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s circumstances ought to have known that a loss had occurred and that a proceeding would be an appropriate remedy.

The court applied the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v Flesch concerning the “full appreciation” test for summary judgment under Rule 20.04(2.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Given the voluminous record and conflicting evidence regarding the parties’ knowledge and accounting expertise, the court held that multiple credibility findings would be required.

The interest of justice therefore required that the matter proceed to trial.

A mining company sought indemnification from the federal government for environmental remediation costs associated with uranium tailings produced under Cold War-era fixed-price uranium supply contracts with a Crown corporation.

The plaintiff argued that the contracts contained an implied term guaranteeing profitability or requiring indemnification if later government regulation increased production costs, and alternatively alleged breach of a duty of good faith and unjust enrichment.

The government moved for summary judgment dismissing the action, while the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

The court held that the proposed implied term was inconsistent with the express fixed‑price structure of the contracts and failed the necessity test for implying contractual terms.

It further held that the doctrine of good faith could not be used to create new obligations inconsistent with the contract, and that the government's enactment of environmental legislation did not constitute contractual bad faith.