Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The plaintiff moved for default judgment against the defendant for defamatory comments posted on Instagram, which falsely claimed the plaintiff was involved in violence against women.

The defendant failed to file a defence and was noted in default.

After multiple orders regarding service of the motion record, the defendant still did not respond.

The court granted default judgment, awarding $140,000 in damages for defamation and $1,413.11 in costs.

The defendants, RBC Insurance Agency Ltd. and Aviva General Insurance Company, sought to schedule a motion to stay an individual action and remove plaintiff's counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest, prior to the certification motion for a proposed class action.

The plaintiff, Kabir Singh, opposed this scheduling, arguing these issues should be determined at the certification hearing.

The court, applying section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, found that hearing the conflict and stay issues before certification would ensure a fair and expeditious determination, preventing potential delays and issues with adequacy of representation if a conflict were found later.

The court ordered the defendants' motion to be heard before the certification motion.

The Plaintiffs sought leave under s. 12 of the Evidence Act to call more than three expert witnesses at trial and an order to abridge time for service of their expert reports.

The Defendant opposed, citing late service and duplication of expert evidence.

The court applied factors for granting leave, emphasizing the "gatekeeper" role of the trial judge and the policy behind s. 12 of the Evidence Act, which applies to all experts offering opinion evidence, including participant experts.

The court found significant duplication among the proposed psychiatric, psychological, and occupational therapy experts and that several reports were served late without adequate justification.

The motion was largely denied, limiting the Plaintiffs to one expert per specialty for opinion evidence and restricting the scope of a physiotherapist's testimony to observations rather than future recommendations for litigation purposes.

The plaintiff, Massimo Gargari, brought a motion seeking the production of a class register from 1983-1984 in a historical abuse case, arguing that former classmates might be witnesses to alleged abuse.

The defendant, Toronto Catholic District School Board, opposed the request, primarily citing prohibitions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPP).

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion as premature, ruling that the plaintiff had not exhausted the statutory remedies available under the MFIPP for the disclosure of personal information, which includes a specific procedure and an appeal process.

The court emphasized the need to protect the privacy of individuals, particularly those who were children at the time the records were created.

The moving party purchased a commercial property from the responding party, who agreed to lease back a portion of the premises for three months to remove its contents.

The responding party failed to vacate, leading the moving party to lock them out and eventually sell the abandoned contents.

The moving party sought summary judgment for outstanding rent, utilities, and the release of a holdback.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and awarded damages for the overholding period while ordering the release of the holdback funds.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motions to lift bankruptcy stays and the granting of summary judgment dismissing the actions against the defendants, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought over $166,000 in costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $126,124.12, apportioning the liability among the three plaintiffs based on the proportionate size of their respective claims, finding that the summary judgment motions effectively disposed of the entire actions.

The plaintiffs, Hydro One ratepayers, brought an action for misfeasance in public office against the Premier and Ministers of Finance and Energy regarding the privatization of Hydro One.

They alleged the sale was motivated by improper purposes to reward Liberal Party benefactors.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The court granted the motion, finding the decision to sell Hydro One shares was a core policy decision authorized by the Electricity Act, 1998, and thus immune from judicial review in a civil tort action absent bad faith, which was not adequately pleaded.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's legal malpractice action due to his failure to pay multiple costs orders totaling $29,000.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, had a history of unpaid costs awards and had made numerous unproven allegations of bias and corruption against judges and opposing counsel.

The court found that the plaintiff had no intention of paying the outstanding costs and dismissed the action under Rule 60.12, subject to a condition allowing the plaintiff to move to set aside the dismissal if he successfully appealed a related matter to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff's action was dismissed for failing to meet the statutory threshold, the successful defendant sought over $104,000 in costs plus disbursements.

The plaintiff argued no costs should be awarded due to her impecuniosity and the defendant insurer's alleged failure to attempt settlement under the Insurance Act.

The court found the insurer did not breach its duty to settle by taking a hard-line defensible position.

However, considering the plaintiff's limited financial means and the modest complexity of the case, the court reduced the defendant's costs and fixed them at $40,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff in a defamation action brought a preliminary motion prior to the hearing of the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiff sought to record oral arguments, compel answers to cross-examination refusals, amend the statement of claim to add a corporate plaintiff, and file late affidavit evidence.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that the proposed amendments would frustrate the purpose of the anti-SLAPP legislation and that there was no reasonable explanation for the late filing of evidence.

In a certified class proceeding regarding a franchise dispute, the plaintiff sought to bring a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the defendant was a franchisor under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The defendant opposed, arguing that all issues should proceed to the scheduled common issues trial.

The court held that permitting a partial summary judgment motion would not be proportionate, expeditious, or cost-effective, as it risked creating multiple final judgments and appeal routes.

The court exercised its power under section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act to prohibit the plaintiff from proceeding with the motion, directing that all issues be determined at the common issues trial.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for well contamination, the court determined costs.

The plaintiff conceded liability for the defendant's partial indemnity costs but disputed liability for the third parties' costs.

Applying the principles from Guarantee Co. of North America, the court found it fair to order the plaintiff to pay the successful third parties' costs, as the main issue litigated was between the plaintiff and the third party who applied the biosolids.

The court fixed total costs at $70,000, apportioned among the defendant and two third parties, noting that the costs claimed were disproportionate to the modest nature of the case and criticizing the parties' failure to make reasonable settlement offers.

The parties sought clarification of a previous judgment awarding the plaintiff 17 months' salary in lieu of notice, subject to a 10% contingency deduction for mitigation.

The court clarified that the 10% deduction applies only to the 7-month future loss period following the date of judgment, as the plaintiff had already suffered the damages up to the date of the hearing with 100% certainty.

This costs decision followed the dismissal of an appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming involuntary patient status under the Mental Health Act.

The appellant had primarily pursued a Charter declaration against the respondent physician concerning the alleged wrongful administration of an injection, relief that had not been sought before the Board or identified in the notice of appeal.

The court held that approach was fundamentally unfair and awarded the respondent physician partial indemnity costs despite the appellant's vulnerable circumstances.

Costs were fixed at $3,000 all-inclusive, payable forthwith, and the Attorney General did not seek costs.

The plaintiff sued his nephew and sister for an unpaid loan of $142,307.21, alleging the nephew borrowed the money and the sister guaranteed it as executrix of their mother's estate.

The defendants brought summary judgment motions, arguing the claim was barred by a mutual release executed to settle a decade of prior estate litigation.

The court granted the sister's motion, finding the broad release extinguished the claim against her.

However, the court dismissed the nephew's motion, concluding there was a genuine issue for trial because he was not a party to the release and the parties did not intend to extinguish his personal debt.

The plaintiff moved under rules 1.04, 2.01, and 48.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to restore an action to the trial list after it had been struck off at a pre‑trial conference.

The underlying claim alleged wrongful dismissal and bad faith following the plaintiff’s termination as an auto body technician.

The court applied the test from appellate authority requiring the plaintiff to provide an acceptable explanation for delay and demonstrate that the defendant would suffer no non‑compensable prejudice if the action were restored.

Considering the litigation history, including the attempt to pursue additional defendants and the absence of a status notice from the registrar, the court found the explanation for delay acceptable.

As the defendants had participated extensively in the litigation and suffered no non‑compensable prejudice, the action was restored to the trial list.

Following dismissal of a civil action for delay and failure to pay prior costs orders, the successful defendants sought costs of both the dismissal motion and the underlying action.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, emphasizing the plaintiff’s conduct which significantly prolonged the proceeding over several years.

Numerous unsuccessful motions and appeals by the plaintiff, combined with unpaid prior costs awards, were found to have unnecessarily lengthened the litigation.

While the defendants claimed substantial partial indemnity costs, the court reduced the requested amounts as excessive and disallowed certain items.

Costs were fixed at $35,500 for the motion and action combined, payable within six months, in addition to earlier outstanding cost orders.

The defendants brought a motion seeking the master's recusal from hearing their earlier motion to dismiss the action for delay and requesting that the dismissal motion be heard anew by another master.

The defendants argued procedural unfairness and denial of natural justice because they were unable to respond to a letter sent by opposing counsel to the court opposing further submissions after the dismissal motion had been argued.

The court found that the letter contained no substantive argument on the jurisdiction issue and that the refusal to allow additional submissions had already been fully explained in earlier reasons.

The court held that the defendants had relied solely on Rules 24 and 48 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and could not recast the legal basis of their motion after argument had concluded.

The recusal motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion seeking a stay of the Ontario action on the basis of forum non conveniens under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing that Qatar was the more appropriate forum.

The action arose from allegations that airline employees failed to warn the plaintiff about local laws regarding alcohol consumption by Muslims, leading to the plaintiff’s arrest, imprisonment, and corporal punishment in Qatar after a flight incident.

Applying the principles from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that the moving parties failed to demonstrate that Qatar was clearly a more appropriate forum.

Several factors—including the residence of the plaintiff and his medical witnesses in Ontario, the airline’s business presence in Ontario, and the plaintiff’s contractual connection to Ontario—supported maintaining the proceeding in Ontario.

The motion to stay the action was dismissed.

Following an earlier ruling on the merits of an appeal, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The responding party argued that costs of the appeal should be deferred to the arbitrator.

The court rejected that submission and held that the moving party had succeeded on the appeal, even though the remedy granted differed from what had been proposed.

Costs were therefore awarded to the successful party.