Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The court considered costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ action by summary judgment.

The Church Defendants and Elle Mortgage Corporation sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the amounts sought reasonable given the nature of the motion and the materials filed, and awarded costs to both sets of defendants, including additional costs previously ordered by Justice Lack.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure of its intention to dismiss five related proceedings commenced by the plaintiff in 2005 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff failed to respond to the notice.

The court found the pleadings to be incomprehensible, repetitive, and abusive, naming dozens of defendants with no material facts against some.

The court dismissed all five actions for being an abuse of process and for excessive delay.

This personal injury action concerned a slip and fall on an icy condominium roadway.

The plaintiff sued the condominium corporation and its snow removal contractor for negligence.

The contractor was deemed an occupier under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The central issue was whether the contractor applied road salt in a sufficiently timely manner to prevent dangerous icy conditions.

The court found the contractor negligent for failing to apply road salt concurrently with or immediately after plowing, which led to the formation of a hazardous icy surface.

The contractor's operational system, which relied on the owner personally handling all salting for numerous properties, was identified as problematic and overstretched.

The court dismissed the defendants' claim of contributory negligence against the plaintiff and found the defendants liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

The defendant Province moved to assign three related actions to case management under Rule 77, arguing that the self-represented plaintiff's conduct had delayed the proceedings and thwarted efforts to schedule summary judgment and strike motions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues were not complex and the tension between the defendant seeking summary resolution and the plaintiff seeking discovery was standard fare for Civil Practice Court.

The court noted that case management resources should be conserved for cases that truly require it.

The applicant, who had been declared a vexatious litigant after her claim for spousal support was dismissed, sought leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act to appeal the trial judgment.

The court applied the conjunctive test under s. 140(4), which requires the applicant to show that the proposed proceeding is not an abuse of process and that there are reasonable grounds for it.

While the court found the proposed appeal was not an abuse of process, it concluded the applicant failed to show reasonable grounds, as she was attempting to re-litigate factual findings and introduce fresh evidence that did not meet the Palmer test.

The motion for leave was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to enforce an arbitration decision and a lien against the respondent's unit.

The self-represented respondent objected and filed a procedurally defective 600-page record attempting to add new parties and claims without issuing a proper Notice of Application.

The court held a case conference and issued directions, requiring the respondent to issue a proper Notice of Application to challenge the lien, while allowing his narrative materials to be treated as an affidavit for the purpose of cross-examinations.

The moving party, a car dealer, sought to set aside an interlocutory injunction preventing the transfer of a $1.5 million Ford GT 'super car'.

The plaintiffs alleged the moving party participated in a civil conspiracy to circumvent a 24-month restriction on the vehicle's resale.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no new facts or unforeseen change in circumstances since the injunction was granted, and held that the conspiracy claim raised triable issues inappropriate for determination on a motion to set aside an injunction.

A jury panel member requested to be excused from jury duty because she had recently become employed as a probation officer.

The court considered whether a probation officer is a 'person engaged in the enforcement of law' under section 3(1) of the Juries Act.

The court reviewed the duties of a probation officer under the Ministry of Correctional Services Act and similar legislation in other provinces.

The court concluded that a probation officer is engaged in law enforcement and is therefore ineligible to serve on a jury in Ontario.

The panel member was excused.

The plaintiff, Core Insight Strategies Inc., brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to add several parties, including Dan Baril as a plaintiff and Erin Kelly, Kenton White, and Ken Rubin as defendants.

Ken Rubin opposed his addition, arguing that the proposed claims of defamation and intentional interference with economic relations, based on his freedom of information requests, were unmeritorious and constituted a "gag proceeding" under Section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Master granted the motion to add the other parties but dismissed the motion to add Ken Rubin, finding that his FOI requests could not be construed as specific allegations of wrongdoing and that allowing such claims would unduly prejudice the exercise of freedom of information rights and expression.

The court amended its initial costs decision regarding an unsuccessful Request for Directions under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The initial decision directed Canada to pay costs to the Requestor.

The Requestor's counsel sought an amendment to have the cheque made payable to his law firm in trust, as the Requestor was never intended to be exposed to costs.

The court granted the amendment, directing Canada to issue a new cheque payable to the counsel's professional corporation in trust upon return of the original cheque.

At the opening of a scheduled 7-week trial, the defendant insurer brought a motion for an adjournment due to the plaintiff's late disclosure of physical evidence and additional documents.

The plaintiff had disclosed the existence of particles and other physical evidence relevant to the cause of the equipment failure just weeks before trial.

The court found that it would be unjust to force the defendant to proceed without an opportunity to obtain expert advice and conduct further discovery on the newly disclosed evidence.

The motion for an adjournment was granted.

The moving parties, plaintiffs in a parallel proposed class action in Saskatchewan, sought leave to intervene in the certification motion of an Ontario class action concerning the same subject matter.

The Ontario plaintiffs opposed the intervention.

The court held that while it had inherent jurisdiction to grant standing to intervene, the moving parties failed to show they would make a useful contribution to the certification motion.

The court found the intervention would likely delay proceedings and potentially prejudice a portion of the class.

The motion for leave to intervene was dismissed.

This was a post-trial costs decision arising from a lengthy commercial dispute over the purchase of a hearing clinic.

Although the plaintiff obtained only $423.20 for five minor breaches of contract, it had pursued extensive allegations of fraud, misconduct, and other wrongdoing, many of which the trial judge found were advanced through fabricated evidence and deliberate falsehoods.

Applying the costs factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court divided the case into issue-based components and awarded full indemnity costs for the fraudulent misrepresentation allegations, substantial indemnity costs for the professional misconduct-related allegations, and partial indemnity costs for most remaining contract issues.

The court also held that the directing mind behind the corporate plaintiff and its sole shareholder were jointly and severally liable for the full indemnity portion because they used the corporation to attempt to perpetrate a fraud upon the court.

In CCAA proceedings involving a debtor company whose assets had already been sold and where no plan of arrangement was contemplated, the representative plaintiff in a proposed securities class action moved to lift the stay of proceedings and to amend the claims procedure order after failing to file a proof of claim by the claims bar date.

The directors argued that the claims procedure barred the class action against them and extinguished related claims, including access to insurance proceeds.

The court held that both the stay and the claims bar order are discretionary tools intended to facilitate restructuring or liquidation objectives under the CCAA.

Because the restructuring process had effectively concluded and no plan was forthcoming, using the claims bar order to extinguish the class action would serve no functional purpose under the CCAA.

The court exercised its discretion to lift the stay and modify the claims procedure order to permit the plaintiff to proceed with the class action.

A small hydroelectric power producer sought a declaration and damages concerning the interpretation of a long‑term electricity purchase contract.

The plaintiff argued that payments after the tenth year of the agreement were required to escalate annually with inflation, while the defendant maintained that the contract fixed the tenth‑year rate as a floor and permitted annual rate determinations thereafter.

The court held the contract language was clear and contained no entitlement to an automatic inflation escalator.

Claims based on estoppel arising from the treatment of other generators were rejected.

Although the limitation period did not bar claims arising within two years before the action, the plaintiff ultimately failed to establish entitlement under the contract.

The defendant appealed a master's order dismissing a motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel for an alleged conflict of interest.

The issue was whether conflict rules applicable to law firm partnerships also apply where lawyers practise in a cost‑sharing association but hold themselves out publicly as a single firm.

The court held that where lawyers present themselves to the public as a firm, the same conflict principles apply, including the presumption that confidential information may be shared absent adequate screening mechanisms.

Because the lawyers shared branding, contact information, and facilities without evidence of protective measures or a shared conflicts system, a reasonable observer would perceive an appearance of conflict.

The master erred in relying on conclusory assurances rather than objective safeguards.

The appeal was allowed and the plaintiff’s counsel was removed from the record.

Charitable beneficiaries of an estate brought a motion seeking a contempt finding against the estate trustee for failing to comply with prior court orders requiring the filing of estate accounts and the taking out of an appointment to pass accounts.

The trustee had been personally served and given an additional extension but failed to comply and did not appear at the contempt hearing.

Applying the test for civil contempt, the court found the prior orders were clear and unequivocal and that the trustee deliberately disobeyed them.

The court held the trustee in contempt, removed her as estate trustee, and ordered the appointment of a succeeding trustee to administer the estate and receive all estate assets.

Substantial indemnity costs were ordered against the trustee personally.

Following earlier reasons ordering the court-supervised sale of several properties after a hybrid trial, the court addressed costs.

The applicants sought partial indemnity costs against various respondents across two related applications.

The court found the applicants had substantially succeeded but determined that the record did not allow proper allocation of costs between the two proceedings.

Accordingly, the court referred the costs of both applications to an assessment officer under Rule 57.01(3.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, with directions regarding which respondents could be liable and limiting recovery to litigation-related expenses.

Following dismissal of a summary judgment motion that sought to bar an unjust enrichment claim on limitation grounds, the applicant requested costs based on her success.

The court held that although the motion had been dismissed, the outcome resulted partly from the applicant’s own failure to amend her pleadings to properly include the unjust enrichment claim after obtaining leave to do so.

The respondent had also failed to plead the limitation issue, contributing to the motion’s failure.

In the circumstances, the court determined that awarding costs to the applicant would improperly reward her pleading deficiency.

The request for costs was therefore dismissed and no costs were awarded to either party.

The applicant property owner sought a declaration allowing her to remove a fence and erect locked gates on a right of way located on her property, which was used by the respondent embassy to access its rear parking lot.

The court found that the issue of the fence was res judicata due to a 1992 court order mandating its installation.

Furthermore, applying the principles of easement law, the court held that erecting locked gates would substantially interfere with the respondent's unimpeded access to its property, which had been established by historical use and previous agreements.

The application was dismissed.