Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim after a mini-trial, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued that the parties should bear their own costs or that she should receive a net costs award due to her costs of resisting a prior summary judgment motion.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument, noting the defendant was entirely successful.

However, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs due to the defendant's failure to provide a proper accounting as a fiduciary and his deceptive conduct regarding property valuation.

Costs were awarded to the defendant on a partial indemnity scale fixed at $58,443.75.

Following a motion for the production of documents in a motor vehicle accident case that resulted in divided success, the court received written submissions on costs.

The defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the plaintiffs submitted there should be no costs in accordance with the court's preliminary view.

The court found the defendant's position unreasonable, noting it was not significantly more successful than the plaintiffs and there was no conduct justifying an enhanced scale.

The court ordered no costs for the motion.

The plaintiff commenced an action against actors of the Children's Aid Society, claiming trespass to goods and asserting ownership over children based on Organized Pseudo-Legal Commercial Argument (OPCA) theories.

The court reviewed the claim under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding the claim to be abusive and nonsensical, the court issued a notice that it is considering dismissing the action and stayed the proceeding, while giving the plaintiff an opportunity to seek legal advice and file a proper claim.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment seeking damages for breach of contract and punitive damages.

The court found that a binding contract existed between the parties, allowing the plaintiffs to live rent-free on a farm property in exchange for duties, despite the absence of formal signatures and the defendant's later unilateral termination.

The court determined that the defendant breached this contract without grounds.

General damages were awarded to the plaintiffs based on the remaining rent-free period, but the claim for punitive damages was dismissed as the defendant's conduct did not constitute an actionable wrong independent of the breach of contract.

The plaintiffs in a class action sought court approval for a settlement agreement with certain defendants, class counsel fees and disbursements, and honorariums for the representative plaintiffs.

The settlement amount was $37 million.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the litigation risks, including dissolved corporate entities and limitations issues.

The court also approved the 30% contingency fee for class counsel and $50,000 honorariums for each representative plaintiff, recognizing their exceptional involvement and exposure to costs.

The respondent brought a motion to change a consent order regarding child access, child support, and travel consents.

The applicant sought to reduce the respondent's access and modify travel consent requirements.

The court varied the access schedule, granting the respondent increased day access and conditional overnight access upon suitable accommodation.

The respondent's requests to reduce child support and expunge arrears were dismissed, as no material change in circumstances was found to warrant a reduction from the previously consented amount.

Travel consent requirements were modified, allowing the applicant to travel within Canada without the respondent's written consent under specific conditions, but retaining the requirement for international travel, school removal, or if it impinged on access.

The respondent was also ordered to promptly sign government documents.

The defendant, Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada, brought a motion seeking an order to compel the plaintiff, Suzanne McGee, to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation and to adjourn the scheduled pre-trial and trial dates.

The defendant argued this was necessary due to a perceived change in opinion from the plaintiff's orthopedic expert following a Functional Abilities Evaluation (FAE).

The court found that the orthopedic expert's subsequent letter merely summarized the FAE's conclusions, which were outside his area of expertise, and did not constitute a new expert opinion requiring a response.

The court also noted the defendant had previously decided against obtaining its own FAE.

The motion was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Bradley Clayton Hunt, moved for a declaration that he was an "insured person" under the Insurance Act and that the defendant, Peel Mutual Insurance Company, was obligated to defend and indemnify him.

This arose from a motor vehicle collision where Hunt and his daughter were passengers.

Hunt's daughter subsequently sued him, alleging negligent parenting.

The defendant insurer denied coverage, arguing that the allegations of negligence against Hunt did not involve the "use or operation" of the vehicle as required by section 239 of the Insurance Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that there was no direct or proximate causal relationship between Hunt's alleged negligent acts (negligent parenting) and the use or operation of the vehicle, thus not triggering the duty to defend.

The plaintiff brought a motion to add Wankiewicz as a defendant in an action for injuries caused by an off-leash dog.

Wankiewicz argued the claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The court found the plaintiff acted with reasonable diligence, as the original defendant had admitted ownership of the dog in his statement of defence before withdrawing the admission over a year later.

The motion to add the defendant was granted, as the claim against her was not discoverable until the admission was withdrawn.

The parties contacted the court following the release of the Reasons for Judgment to advise that the consent damages calculation of $2,214,895.00 inadvertently omitted a one-time payment of $562,000.00.

The court issued an addendum amending the damages awarded to the plaintiffs to $2,776,895.00.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion for a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff claimed permanent impairment of his left arm from a motor vehicle accident, but the defendants sought medical records relating to prior injuries to the same arm in 2004 and 2006.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred in law by weighing evidence to determine relevance rather than relying on the pleadings, which clearly put the pre-existing condition in issue.

The plaintiff was ordered to produce the requested medical records.

Following a lengthy jury trial concerning defamation and invasion of privacy claims against media defendants, the jury accepted the defence of justification and dismissed the action.

The successful defendants sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $1.6 million.

The court considered the governing principles under the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the presumption that costs are fixed by the trial judge and the factors under Rule 57.01.

Given the jury’s findings that the impugned statements were true and the plaintiff’s unsuccessful prosecution of extensive allegations of fraud, the court held that the case justified an award of substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at the defendants’ reasonable full indemnity amount due to the indemnity principle.

Following reasons granting judgment to the applicant on a dispute arising from a share purchase and pledge arrangement, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis, while the responding parties argued that success was divided or that costs should be reduced.

The court held the applicant was clearly the successful party and entitled to costs but found no litigation conduct justifying full or substantial indemnity.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considering proportionality, complexity, and reasonable expectations, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Costs were set at a lump sum payable jointly and severally by two respondents.

Following a successful summary judgment motion by the plaintiffs in a wrongful dismissal action, the court addressed costs.

One defendant sought costs against the other defendant rather than the plaintiffs, arguing that the other party’s litigation position caused its involvement in the action.

The court rejected that position and held that no costs would be awarded for or against that defendant.

The court found the remaining defendant liable for the plaintiffs’ costs and determined that substantial indemnity costs were appropriate due to the defendant’s unfounded and strategic allegation of termination for cause, which unnecessarily complicated and lengthened the proceedings.

This was a costs endorsement following an order requiring the respondent to vacate property occupied without entitlement.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were warranted because the respondent delayed the proceeding through adjournments, changes in counsel, repudiation of a negotiated settlement, and meritless positions, including an unproven will relating to different lands.

The court also relied on written settlement offers under Rule 49.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Full disbursements of $4,383.82 and substantial indemnity fees of $20,000 were awarded, for total costs of $24,383.82.

Following a trial in which the defendant was entirely successful despite having admitted liability, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The plaintiff had sought millions of dollars in damages but ultimately proved none at trial.

The defendant sought costs of $498,815.97, including partial indemnity fees up to April 21, 2010 and substantial indemnity fees thereafter based on unaccepted offers to settle.

The court found the amount fair and reasonable given the complexity of the damages theory advanced by the plaintiff, the unnecessary lengthening of the trial, and the plaintiff’s failure to accept settlement offers that should have been accepted.

Full costs in the amount claimed were awarded to the defendant.

Third parties brought motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a third party claim arising from alleged groundwater contamination caused by a leaking pesticide storage tank.

The moving parties argued they had no responsibility for maintenance of the tank or liability for any leak.

The responding defendants argued that liability among the supplier, distributor, and related agents depended on unresolved contractual relationships and factual findings.

The court held that discovery had not yet occurred and that the evidentiary record was incomplete.

Given the need to assess contractual arrangements and credibility, the court found the motion premature and concluded the issues required a full trial.

The applicant sought possession of six trailers and damages for conversion.

The respondents had previously sold their trucking company but retained a general security agreement.

When the new company went bankrupt, the respondents instructed a receiver to sell the applicant's trailers, despite knowing the applicant had a prior perfected security interest under the Personal Property Security Act.

The court found the respondents personally liable for conversion, as they acted under their personal security agreement.

Damages were assessed at $129,500, and the respondents' claim for a set-off for storage and maintenance was dismissed.

The court issued an endorsement to settle the terms of a certification order in a securities class action, following the certification of conspiracy claims.

The defendants sought to exclude 'early sellers' from the class definition and challenged the class period dates.

The court declined to exclude early sellers, finding it premature as the scope of those entitled to relief for conspiracy was uncertain.

The court also approved the class period dates as they aligned with the plaintiff's theory of the case.

Finally, the court approved the plaintiff as a suitable representative for both primary and secondary market purchasers regarding the conspiracy claim.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel of record, Steven Gadbois, due to a conflict of interest.

Gadbois had previously represented a key defence witness, Mr. Azevedo, in a related action.

The defendants argued that Gadbois possessed confidential information about Azevedo and might be called as a witness regarding an unsigned document he prepared.

The court applied the test from Macdonald Estate v. Martin and found that Gadbois' duty of loyalty to his former client created a conflict, particularly since he would have to cross-examine Azevedo.

The motion to remove counsel was granted.