Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The plaintiffs, John Snow and Sherry Snow, brought motions to consolidate two related actions and to validate service of the statement of claim and motion materials on the defendants.

The court granted both motions, finding that service by email should be validated given the defendants' actual notice of the claim, and that consolidation was appropriate as both actions arose from the same share purchase agreement and related promissory note.

The court also set a timetable for the consolidated action and addressed the process for amending pleadings and exchanging costs submissions.

The court considered a request by the defendants to dismiss the plaintiff’s action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found it may be appropriate to make such an order, as the claim appeared to attempt to re-litigate issues already decided and to seek liability against a law firm for its representation in a prior summary judgment motion.

The court directed the registrar to give notice to the parties and outlined the procedures for written submissions under Rules 2.1.01(8) and (9).

The proceeding is automatically stayed pending the court’s decision.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement, alleging the plaintiff failed to produce certain financial information and was responsible for specific payments.

They also wrongly accused the plaintiff of theft.

The plaintiff, through substantial investigation, proved that nothing was owing and no documents were missing.

The court found the defendants' claims unfounded and awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity scale, totaling $59,000.00, payable from funds held in trust by the defendants' counsel.

The decision emphasized that the costs award compensates the successful party without exceeding the unsuccessful party's reasonable expectations, as per Rule 57.01(1)(0.a) and (0.b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' professional negligence action as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs retained the defendant in 2011, but the defendant failed to advance the action, leading to its administrative dismissal in 2012.

The plaintiffs discovered the defendant's negligence by the summer of 2016 but delayed commencing an action until November 2019, partly to pursue a Law Society complaint.

The court held that the limitation period began to run in the summer of 2016 when the plaintiffs had a plausible inference of liability, and that pursuing a regulatory complaint did not suspend the limitation period.

The motion was granted and the action dismissed.

This case conference addressed three issues in a class action: the plaintiff's counsel's use of the defendants' corporate logo, the opt-out deadline for class members, and the defendants' communications with class members.

The court directed the plaintiff's counsel to cease using the logo to avoid confusion, set a revised opt-out deadline of April 3, 2022, and found no evidence of misconduct in the defendants' communications, noting that a high opt-out rate was foreseeable due to the nature of the claim.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion for summary judgment in a mortgage action.

The plaintiff, 1658161 Ontario Inc., sought costs after obtaining partial summary judgment, arguing the motion was necessary due to the defendant's, Dianne Marie Carroll's, failure to pay and refusal to acknowledge possession rights.

The defendant opposed, claiming she had consented to part of the judgment.

The court, applying principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, determined that costs should be fixed at this stage rather than reserved for trial.

The plaintiff's costs claim was reduced by one-third for the summary judgment motion, and the defendant was ordered to pay $10,000 in costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, was disqualified by the Dispute Resolution Appeals Committee (DRAC) following a complaint about his campaign materials.

He brought a summary judgment motion seeking to restore his candidacy, arguing breach of contract, procedural unfairness, and bad faith.

The court found that while the process was fair and there was no bad faith, the DRAC lacked the authority under the party's rules to disqualify a candidate.

The court set aside the disqualification and restored the Chief Returning Officer's original ruling, which imposed a penalty but not disqualification, without prejudice to the Leadership Election Organizing Committee's right to consider the matter.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to discontinue a proposed class action regarding transvaginal mesh implants manufactured by the defendants.

The parties reached a settlement agreement that resolves the claims of many putative class members and provides a process for others to participate or pursue individual claims.

The court approved the discontinuance, finding that it was beneficial to settling class members and did not prejudice the remaining putative class members.

The court also approved the payment of $1,085,000 in costs to class counsel.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiff's Amended Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety.

The plaintiff alleged a fraudulent scheme involving breach of contract, conspiracy, and other torts by its former employee and various corporate and individual defendants in China and Ontario.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead material facts to support personal liability against the individual defendants (except the former employee) separate from their roles as corporate directors or officers.

The court struck the entire statement of claim but granted the plaintiff leave to deliver a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim in accordance with the court's directives.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for damages arising from an aborted real estate transaction, the plaintiff sought costs of $19,822.64.

The plaintiff had served an offer to settle that was less than the judgment obtained, triggering Rule 49.10(2).

The defendant requested an indulgence to reduce the costs to a partial indemnity scale due to recent health problems and reduced income.

The court declined to reduce the costs award, holding that any indulgence was for the plaintiff to grant, and awarded the costs as requested.

The plaintiffs in a certified class action regarding transvaginal mesh devices brought a motion to approve the Notice of a Settlement Approval Hearing, the Notice Plan, and minor amendments to the 2017 Certification Order.

The parties had entered into a $21.5 million settlement.

The defendants consented to the motion.

The court approved the expansion of the class definition to include individuals implanted with the devices up to the date of the order, finding it fair and necessary.

The court also approved the proposed notices and notice plan, finding they met the statutory criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiffs in a certified class action brought a refusals motion to compel the defendant, Bruce Monk, to answer 31 questions refused and 6 questions taken under advisement during his examination for discovery.

The underlying action involves allegations that the defendant took intimate photographs of ballet students.

The refused questions primarily related to photographs of non-class members, including former students and staff.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the questions to be immaterial, irrelevant, disproportionate, and an overreaching fishing expedition, noting that discovery in class proceedings is generally restricted to certified common issues.

The plaintiff purchaser failed to close a real estate transaction on the scheduled closing date.

The defendant vendor offered an extension conditional on the payment of an administration fee by a specific deadline.

Due to a banking error, the fee was not deposited in time, and the vendor terminated the agreement and retained the $40,000 deposit.

The purchaser sued for return of the deposit and damages.

The vendor brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the purchaser breached the agreement and was not entitled to relief from forfeiture, as the deposit was not a penalty and the vendor's conduct was not unconscionable.

Following a successful forfeiture application under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, the Attorney General of Ontario sought costs of $15,443.51 on a partial indemnity basis.

The Interested Party, Eric Mahama, did not oppose the costs claim.

The court found the requested costs to be fair and reasonable, considering the four-year duration of the forfeiture application and the contested nature of the original proceeding.

The full amount of costs claimed by the Attorney General was granted.

The party seeking costs was completely successful on motions regarding whether communications at a meeting were subject to settlement privilege.

The opposing party, who had surreptitiously recorded the meeting and publicly filed the transcript, argued for a costs reduction as a public interest litigant.

The court rejected the public interest litigant argument for these specific motions.

The court also declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, adjusting the requested hourly rates downwards, fixing costs at $136,315.

The plaintiffs in a securities class action brought a refusals motion seeking production of draft reports, correspondence, and invoices from the defendants' expert witness.

The expert had retained his own independent legal counsel to assist in researching and drafting his affidavit.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the expert's consultation with his own independent counsel did not compromise his independence or impartiality.

Applying the principles from Moore v. Getahun, the court found that absent a factual foundation showing improper influence, the draft reports and communications were protected by litigation privilege.

The plaintiff brought a civil action for slander, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of mental suffering arising from his arrest at a cheque‑cashing store after attempting to cash a cheque that store staff believed to be fraudulent.

The court found that although defamatory words were communicated to police and employees, the statements were protected by qualified privilege and there was no proof of malice.

The malicious prosecution claim failed because the defendant did not initiate the prosecution and reasonable and probable grounds existed for the police investigation and charges.

The claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering also failed because the defendant’s conduct was not flagrant or outrageous and causation of the plaintiff’s psychiatric condition was not established.

In addition, the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiff did not prove incapacity to suspend the limitation period.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a further independent medical examination by a physiatrist and permitting the resulting expert report to be served after the pre-trial conference.

The plaintiff opposed the request on the basis that it constituted a second medical examination and argued the defendants had not established its necessity.

The court held that the plaintiff’s physiatrist report introduced issues concerning mood, anxiety, and cognitive symptoms that were outside the expertise of the defendants’ orthopaedic surgeon who had previously examined the plaintiff.

Given the differing medical specialties and the need to respond to new issues raised in the plaintiff’s expert evidence, the court exercised its discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to order the additional examination.

The plaintiff was ordered to attend the defendants’ physiatrist examination and the expert report was permitted to be served after the pre-trial.

Shareholder plaintiffs brought a motion seeking injunctive relief to preserve proceeds from the sale of corporate property pending determination of their claim to the funds.

The defendants requested an adjournment to permit cross-examinations on affidavits and argued that funds remaining in the corporation’s bank account were sufficient to satisfy the claim.

The court granted the adjournment but imposed protective terms requiring the shareholder defendants to repay missing proceeds into the corporate account and prohibiting any withdrawal or dissipation of the full proceeds pending the motion’s return.

The court also ordered that the corporation’s business affairs remain at status quo and that no corporate actions be taken without unanimous shareholder consent or further court order.

In a guardianship application under the Substitute Decisions Act concerning the alleged incapacity of an elderly business owner, the applicant sought an order sealing the court file.

Corporate respondents involved in related automotive businesses also sought a confidentiality order allowing them to file documents with the court without disclosing them to certain co‑respondents, or alternatively an “eyes‑only” order limiting disclosure to counsel.

The court held that a sealing order was appropriate under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act given the sensitive medical, personal, and commercial information involved.

However, the requested confidentiality order preventing disclosure to opposing parties was rejected as contrary to fundamental principles of civil procedure and natural justice.

The court instead extended the deemed undertaking rule to protect confidential information while maintaining ordinary disclosure obligations between parties.