Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

This costs endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following the Attorney General of Canada's successful motion to strike the plaintiff's claim.

The court considered the reasonableness of the hours and rates claimed, the complexity and importance of the issues, and the conduct of the parties.

The court found the hours claimed by the Attorney General to be excessive and awarded partial indemnity costs, fixing the amount at $8,468.

The applicants sought an order directing the substituted buyer to transfer title of a pre-construction property to them.

The respondent had assigned his Agreement of Purchase and Sale to the applicants but failed to seek the builder's consent or pay the required fees.

Instead, as the property value rose, the respondent amended the agreement to substitute his realtor's wife as the buyer.

The court found that the respondent breached his duty of good faith by failing to take reasonable steps to complete the assignment.

The court ordered the substituted buyer, who held title in trust, to transfer the property to the applicants upon payment of the originally agreed purchase price.

The moving parties, a corporate tenant and its principal, sought to consolidate a landlord's action against the principal (as indemnifier) into the tenant's existing action against the landlord, to be asserted by way of counterclaim.

The court dismissed the motion for consolidation, finding that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a counterclaim against only a non-party without also claiming against the plaintiff.

However, the court granted the alternative relief, which the responding party had previously agreed to, ordering that the two actions be tried together or one after another, with shared discovery evidence.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action requested a case conference to schedule examinations for discovery and mediation, citing unresponsiveness from the defendant's counsel.

The court found the request premature and inappropriate, as the plaintiff had not yet delivered a sworn Affidavit of Documents or a Notice of Examination for Discovery.

The court declined to schedule the discoveries, directed the parties to utilize the Rules of Civil Procedure, and awarded $250 in costs to the defendant for the unnecessary case conference.

The plaintiffs and certain defendants consented to vary a previously granted Mareva injunction.

The consent order unfreezes three bank accounts belonging to the consenting defendants and directs the transfer of funds from one account to the plaintiffs' solicitor's trust account, to be held pending further order or written consent.

The court granted the order as requested.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside the administrative dismissal of his counterclaim for defamation.

The action and counterclaim had been dismissed for delay under Rule 48.14.

The court applied the Reid factors and a contextual approach, finding that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, relying only on a lawyer's hearsay affidavit rather than direct evidence.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was dismissed.

The applicants, employees of the Canada Revenue Agency, moved to discharge a financing statement registered against them under the Personal Property Security Act by the respondent.

The respondent registered the statements in retaliation for a tax audit decision.

The court found the respondent had no security interest or reasonable basis for the registrations.

The court ordered the discharge of the remaining registration and awarded the mandatory $500 statutory penalty per applicant, along with substantial indemnity costs.

This addendum to a costs endorsement confirmed an earlier ruling granting costs to the applicant.

The respondent had failed to file cost submissions by the initial deadline, leading to the original endorsement.

After it was discovered the respondent had not received the initial ruling, a temporary stay on the cost award was issued, and the respondent was given a new deadline to file submissions.

Upon reviewing the respondent's submissions, which largely reiterated arguments from the underlying injunction motion and sought no costs, the court found them unhelpful and was not convinced to revise the original cost ruling.

The temporary stay was lifted, and the original cost endorsement was confirmed.

Following a successful motion to strike the plaintiffs' pleadings, the defendant sought costs.

The court reviewed the costs claimed by the defendant, including partial indemnity fees and disbursements for travel.

Finding the rates and time spent reasonable, the court awarded the defendant costs fixed at $4,127.64.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 30.06 for a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendants, seeking client lists, contracts, financial records, and communications.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet its evidentiary onus to prove on a balance of probabilities that the requested documents existed and remained in the defendants' possession, control, or power.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to bringing it again after discoveries.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel defendant Kwang Eui Chang to comply with a prior asset disclosure order and to impose a discovery plan.

The defendant argued the asset disclosure order had expired due to lack of proper service and opposed the discovery plan based on an anticipated security for costs motion.

The court found the prior order remained binding, dismissing the defendant's arguments regarding expiry and the delay of discovery.

A detailed discovery plan was imposed, including deadlines for affidavits of documents and scheduling examinations for discovery for all parties, with provisions for remote participation and interpreter costs.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a 2014 trial judgment regarding unpaid condominium fees, relying on an affidavit they claimed contained new facts.

The court found the motion to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 21.02(1).

The court noted that the burden under Rule 59.06(2) is high and the defendants failed to present any facts that arose after the trial or could not have been reasonably discovered prior.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The moving party, in the midst of complex family trust litigation, sought leave to withdraw admissions made in a previous affidavit and to file three new affidavits.

The moving party argued the admissions regarding multi-million dollar shareholder loans were made inadvertently due to confusion and reliance on her former, now-deceased counsel.

The responding parties opposed, arguing the admissions were formal and the new evidence was an attempt to repair her case mid-hearing.

The court granted the motion, finding the admissions were likely inadvertent, raised a triable issue, and caused no non-compensable legal prejudice to the responding parties.

The court emphasized the need to decide the case on its true merits rather than a solicitor's or party's mistake.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for malicious prosecution, defamation, negligence, and misrepresentation.

The claims arose from the defendant reporting the plaintiffs to the police for alleged corporate fraud, which led to criminal charges that were later withdrawn.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the misrepresentation claim, finding no reliance by the plaintiffs.

However, the court dismissed the motion regarding the remaining claims, concluding that a fair and just determination could not be made at this stage due to outstanding factual issues and incomplete discovery.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the law firm that successfully represented the mother of his child in prior family court proceedings.

The plaintiff sought $750,000 in damages and an order banning the firm from practicing law, having previously failed to overturn the child support order and having a prior civil action against the mother stayed as an abuse of process.

The court found the action appeared frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and directed the Registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, staying the action pending a written hearing.

Fishman Flanz Meland Paquin LLP (FFMP), counsel to the Creditors' Committee in a CCAA proceeding, brought a motion to compel FCA Canada Inc. (Chrysler) to sign an indemnity against potential tax liabilities arising from the distribution of Cost Award Funds from prior Quebec litigation.

FFMP also sought payment of Chrysler's share of tax advice costs and FFMP's motion expenses.

Chrysler opposed, arguing FFMP breached an undertaking to pay without conditions and had no right to deduct costs.

The court found FFMP's requests for indemnity and cost deductions reasonable and consistent with the Plan's intent and the court's broad discretion under section 11 of the CCAA.

The court allowed FFMP's motion and dismissed Chrysler's cross-motion, ordering Chrysler to comply with FFMP's demands before receiving its pro rata share of the Cost Award Funds.

The defendant in two separate actions arising from the same motor vehicle accident moved to have the actions tried together or sequentially, and to transfer the venue of one action from North Bay to Sudbury.

The court dismissed the motion to try the actions together as premature, noting that one action was at a much more advanced stage than the other.

The court also dismissed the motion to change venue, finding that the plaintiff's choice of North Bay was reasonable and the defendant failed to show that Sudbury was a significantly better venue.

The motions were dismissed without prejudice to being renewed closer to trial.

At a status hearing in a simplified procedure action arising from an alleged failed business venture, the defendants sought dismissal for delay after the plaintiff took no steps for more than two years following the close of pleadings.

The court held that the transitional provision in Rule 48.14(12) required application of the former version of Rule 48.14 because the status hearing had been scheduled before January 1, 2015.

Applying the Court of Appeal's status hearing jurisprudence, the court found the plaintiff's explanation for delay inadequate and noted the absence of any steps to advance the action.

The action was dismissed.

The moving defendants sought to strike the amended statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs alleged numerous causes of action arising from disciplinary proceedings and a trusteeship order involving the professional practice of a lawyer and sought extensive damages against the regulator, its employees, and media defendants.

The court held the pleading was rambling, vexatious, and failed to disclose reasonable causes of action.

Claims including defamation, malicious prosecution, and derivative Family Law Act damages were inadequately pleaded or legally barred.

The court further found the claims constituted an impermissible collateral attack on prior disciplinary and court decisions and were barred by statutory immunity under the Law Society Act.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for a trading loss caused by a botched share transfer, arguing it was statute-barred.

The plaintiff argued the claim was not discovered until 2010 when new information was disclosed.

The court found the plaintiff knew enough material facts by April 2007 to commence a legal proceeding.

Even accounting for a nine-month tolling period during an Ombudsman investigation, the action commenced in November 2011 was well beyond the two-year limitation period.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.