Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

Prior to the motion, the defendant accepted the plaintiff's Rule 49 offer to settle, resolving all issues except costs.

The court issued an endorsement setting a timetable for written costs submissions and remained seized of the matter.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action requested a case conference to schedule dates for discovery and mediation after the defendant delayed proceedings due to internal HR turnover.

The court established a litigation timetable, ordering examinations for discovery to be completed by January 14, 2022, and mediation by February 4, 2022.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent ex-parte motion for Mareva, Anton Piller, and Certificate of Pending Litigation orders against the defendants, alleging a multi-million dollar investment fraud.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and a significant risk of asset dissipation.

The court granted all three orders, finding the respective tests were met, and scheduled a return date for the parties to report back.

The plaintiff mortgagee sought to recover over $1.3 million from the defendant guarantor.

The court previously determined that the mortgage amount could not be increased by payments made by the plaintiff's corporation.

This decision addresses the final judgment amount, post-trial interest adjustments, and costs.

The court calculated the amount owing under the mortgage to be $1,897.89.

It declined to suspend interest, finding no legal basis for it.

Regarding costs, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, while the defendant sought costs against the plaintiff.

The court applied Rule 57.05(1) and exercised its discretion to deny costs to the plaintiff, given the minimal recovery compared to the amount claimed and the plaintiff's knowledge regarding the legal basis of her claim.

The court also found no legal basis to award costs to the defendant.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that a third-party insurer ranked first in priority for coverage and was obligated to defend the action.

The third-party insurer denied coverage.

The court addressed a preliminary issue regarding the proper use of discovery transcripts in motions.

Ultimately, the court found it could not determine the substantive insurance coverage dispute without further submissions on its jurisdiction to interpret a Quebec-issued policy and the applicable Quebec law.

The motion was adjourned sine die.

The defendants sought costs following a 20-day trial where the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and the defendants succeeded on their counterclaim.

The court awarded the first group of defendants costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the plaintiffs' reprehensible conduct, which amounted to elder abuse.

The second group of defendants was awarded partial indemnity costs, as the claims against them were not found to be vexatious.

Total costs of over $325,000 were awarded against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing her motor vehicle accident action for delay.

The action was dismissed after the plaintiff's former lawyer failed to set the action down for trial by the court-ordered deadline.

Applying the four-factor test, the Master found that the delay was not inordinate, the missed deadline was due to inadvertence, and the defendants suffered no actual prejudice.

The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside, subject to the suspension of pre-judgment interest and payment of a missed defence medical cancellation fee.

A case conference endorsement in a commercial dispute over a $10 million commission.

The plaintiff sought to proceed to mediation, which the defendants opposed.

The court declined to order mediation for unwilling commercial parties, noting it would waste time and money.

The court issued general case management directions and specific deadlines for the examination for discovery of a third party and for the defendants to answer overdue undertakings.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims of misrepresentation and breach of the Consumer Protection Act arising from a vehicle purchase and credit rebuilding program.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to amend her statement of claim to include admissions made by the corporate defendant in a related OMVIC proceeding.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend the pleading, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues for trial existed regarding the alleged misrepresentations and statutory violations that could not be resolved on the documentary record alone.

The respondents brought a motion to strike the applicants' application.

The court did not strike the application but granted the applicants leave to convert it to an action.

The parties subsequently made written submissions on the costs of the motion.

The applicants argued they should not be subject to costs as they were public interest litigants.

The court rejected this argument, finding the applicants were pursuing a personal pecuniary interest related to their commercial property.

The court awarded costs to the respondents, fixing the amounts at $15,000 plus disbursements for the federal respondents, and $2,500 each for the two municipal respondents.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 59.06(2) to set aside or vary a prior order dismissing summary judgment, alleging fraud or newly discovered facts concerning the non-disclosure of a substantial payment from the defendant solicitor's trust account to a co-defendant paralegal, labelled "Sawah fees." The plaintiff also sought to compel the defendant solicitor's examination for discovery in Mississauga rather than Winnipeg.

The court found the non-disclosure suspicious but determined the new evidence was insufficient to overturn the summary judgment dismissal, concluding that the matter should proceed to trial for credibility assessments.

The court granted the request for discovery in Mississauga, citing efficiency and the simplified rules.

Following a decision on share ownership, the court held a trial management conference to determine next steps in the consolidated actions, which include an oppression remedy claim.

The court directed the parties to consider whether a stay motion will be brought pending an appeal of the initial decision, how to efficiently gather and present extensive financial evidence, and the potential for a mid-trial settlement conference.

The conference was adjourned to allow counsel to obtain instructions.

The applicants were successful on an interim motion permitting the individual applicant to resume his day-to-day involvement in the parties' businesses.

The court was asked to determine the costs of the motion.

The respondents argued costs should be in the cause, while the applicants sought substantial indemnity costs payable immediately.

The court found that the respondent's conduct in unilaterally ousting the applicant without colour of right justified an order of costs in any event of the cause.

However, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing them at $23,810.59 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicant sought to enforce an arbitration award against the respondents by way of an application.

The court previously converted the application into an action because material facts were in dispute, and directed the parties to make written submissions on costs for the preliminary motion.

The court denied costs to both parties.

The applicant was denied costs because it should have known an application was inappropriate given the disputed facts.

The respondents were denied costs due to egregious deficiencies in their responding affidavit and delays in satisfying undertakings.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim for non-earner benefits arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued that the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Insurance Act and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because the benefit had been denied in 2008.

The court held that the insurer’s OCF‑9 constituted a clear refusal of benefits and that the limitation period began running from that denial.

A subsequent change in the law regarding eligibility for non‑earner benefits did not invalidate the earlier denial or revive the limitation period.

Claims for mental distress, bad faith, and negligent misrepresentation were also dismissed due to lack of evidentiary support.

The plaintiffs moved to set aside a registrar’s dismissal order after the action was dismissed for failure to meet a timetable deadline under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the missed deadline resulted from an inadvertent diarizing error and that the motion was brought promptly with no prejudice to the defendant, warranting revival of the action.

A related motion sought production of an accident reconstruction report prepared for the plaintiff’s insurer.

The court held the report was not protected by litigation privilege and that Rule 31.06(3) imposed a high threshold for withholding expert opinions.

The plaintiffs were ordered to produce the report, while the defendants were permitted to pursue underlying source materials from the expert or insurer if relevant.

The plaintiff moved for leave to amend its statement of claim to add its insurance broker as a defendant and to assert negligence and breach of duty claims arising from insurers’ denial of coverage in related litigation.

The proposed claims were contingent on the plaintiff failing to obtain indemnity and defence costs from the insurers.

The court considered Rules 5.04(2) and 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure alongside the mandatory two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

It held that the plaintiff had knowledge of the material facts underlying the broker’s alleged negligence when the insurers denied coverage, more than two years before the motion to amend.

Because the limitation period had expired and no evidence rebutting discoverability was provided, the broker could not be added as a party.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim to significantly increase claims for future care, housekeeping, and income loss.

The defendant did not oppose the amendment but sought orders compelling a further examination for discovery and requiring the plaintiff to attend a defence in-home occupational therapy assessment.

The court held the defendant had not met the requirements under Rule 31.09 to justify a further discovery because there was no evidence the plaintiff’s prior answers were incomplete or incorrect.

However, the court exercised its discretion to order a non‑medical occupational therapy assessment, finding that the plaintiff had placed functional limitations and significant future care costs in issue and fairness required the defendant be able to obtain comparable evidence.

The motion for further discovery was denied, but the defence occupational therapy assessment was ordered and costs were awarded partially to the defendant.

Co‑owners of real property held as tenants in common disputed whether a prior agreement for one co‑owner to purchase the other’s interest remained binding after the closing date passed without financing.

The respondent sought specific performance of the original agreement and argued that her solicitor had negligently failed to request a further extension and had consented to judgment without authority.

The court found the agreement had lapsed because time was of the essence and payment was not tendered by the extended closing date.

It further held that the parties’ consent judgment permitting the property to be listed and sold was valid and enforceable because the solicitor had apparent authority and enforcement would not create injustice.

The moving party was granted leave to accept a higher third‑party offer and bind both co‑owners.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a motion seeking multiple discovery-related orders, including further production of documents, clarification of undertakings and refusals, and a second medical examination.

The court emphasized compliance with Rule 37.10(10) of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring a refusals and undertakings chart and criticized the moving parties for failing to provide one.

Several document production requests were dismissed as irrelevant or disproportionate, while limited additional disclosure was ordered, including production of an unredacted medical file and updated affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff was also ordered to attend a neuropsychological independent medical examination.

The decision highlights proportionality and procedural compliance in discovery motions.