Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The moving parties sought to amend a trial judgment and costs judgment dated August 15, 2022 and February 15, 2023, respectively, to add a defendant who was not named in their original statement of claim and against whom they did not pursue any cause of action.

The moving parties also sought to amend reasons for decision from a distribution motion to align with the proposed amendments.

The court found that the moving parties had deliberately chosen not to name the defendant as a party to their action despite opportunities to do so, had confirmed during discoveries that they were not suing her, and had not cross-examined her at trial.

The court held that it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to amend the judgments, and that Rule 59.06 did not provide grounds for the requested amendments.

The motion was dismissed on the basis that parties must present their entire case and not litigate by installment, and that the principle of finality must govern.

The applicant landlord sought overholding rent, damages to the premises, and unpaid water bills from the respondent tenant after the tenant failed to renew its commercial lease and eventually vacated the premises.

The court found it would be inequitable to enforce the full overholding rent provision due to delays in the court process, and ordered a reduced amount.

The court also awarded partial damages for repairs to the premises, dismissing claims that were unproven or already addressed by the tenant.

The tenant conceded liability for the water arrears.

Judgment was issued in favour of the landlord for $82,293.69.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal, the defendants sought costs of $11,073.92, which included cancellation fees for missed defence medical assessments.

The court held that the cancellation fees were outside the purview of appeal costs and could be pursued at trial or by separate motion.

The court awarded the successful defendants costs of the appeal fixed at $4,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The defendant, Metrolinx, brought a motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel of record, arguing that counsel was a material witness to the negotiations underlying the plaintiffs' claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

The court applied the Essa factors and found that the defendant failed to establish that counsel would likely be called as a witness or that his evidence was necessary.

The court also held that the defendant was not entitled to disclosure of solicitor-client privileged communications.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs in a conditionally certified class action sought court approval for new Class Counsel, a precondition for certification.

The defendant withdrew its decertification motion and consented to the appointment.

The court appointed Flaherty McCarthy LLP and Mack Lawyers as Class Counsel, rendering the action unconditionally certified.

The plaintiffs brought motions to certify three proposed class actions for settlement purposes against three immigration lawyers.

The plaintiffs alleged professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in the defendants' representation of Roma refugee claimants from Hungary.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, noting that compliance is not as strictly required for settlement purposes.

The motions for certification were granted.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action alleging negligence against a dental office for improperly sterilized equipment leading to infectious disease exposure.

The defendants had issued a third-party claim against dental hygienists.

The parties reached an agreement on the terms of the Certification Order.

The court found an identifiable class with four sub-classes and agreed-upon common issues related to negligence.

The plaintiff was deemed an appropriate representative, and a litigation plan was accepted.

The action met the criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and was certified as a class proceeding.

No costs were awarded.

Avis Industrial Corporation applied for an order declaring Gordon Gravelle a vexatious litigant, seeking to preclude him and associated corporations from commencing or continuing legal proceedings without court leave.

The court reviewed Mr. Gravelle's extensive history of litigation, which included numerous unsuccessful motions for reconsideration, parallel actions, and appeals dismissed for delay or lack of merit, often involving the same issues or parties.

The court found that Mr. Gravelle's conduct exhibited characteristics of vexatious litigation, such as ignoring adverse rulings, engaging in repetitive proceedings, and failing to pay costs.

Despite Mr. Gravelle's sincere belief in the merit of his claims, the court concluded that his actions persistently abused the court process and squandered judicial resources.

An order was issued under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, requiring leave for future proceedings and imposing conditions, including the payment of outstanding costs.

The defendant abandoned its motion for an interlocutory injunction after failing to obtain interim relief.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing it had made an offer to settle that it beat due to the abandonment.

The court held that under Rule 49, a responding party is not automatically entitled to substantial indemnity costs upon beating an offer, and such an award requires reprehensible conduct, which was absent here.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $17,500.

The parties, former business partners in several fitness clubs, brought claims and counterclaims against each other following the breakdown of their relationship.

The plaintiffs sought the unpaid balance from the defendants' repurchase of a 50% interest in four clubs.

The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid head office administration fees and shared expenses related to a jointly owned club in Cambridge.

The court reconciled the amounts owed by both sides, finding the defendants owed the plaintiffs $35,000.00 and the plaintiffs owed the defendants $34,713.49.

The court granted judgment to the plaintiffs for the net difference of $286.51, plus pre-judgment interest, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.

The applicant insurance company sought a mandatory injunction by way of application to compel the respondent construction company to pay funds into trust as security for construction lien bonds.

The respondent argued that an injunction cannot be the sole primary relief sought in an application under Rule 14.05(3)(g) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court agreed, holding that injunctive relief must be ancillary to other relief in a proceeding properly commenced by notice of application.

The application was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) and (d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to strike the claim against an individual pastor on the basis that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against him personally.

The action alleged that a church-operated homeschooling program misrepresented its educational status, causing the plaintiffs' child to lose years of recognized schooling.

The moving party argued that the individual pastor acted only within his corporate capacity and could not be personally liable.

The court held that, reading the pleadings generously and assuming the facts to be true, the claim alleged potential independent tortious conduct and a fiduciary relationship between the pastor and the plaintiffs.

It was therefore not plain and obvious that the claim against the individual disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff brought a motion to transfer the action to another jurisdiction and for leave to amend the statement of claim after discovery evidence revealed additional entities allegedly involved in selling the plaintiff’s musical compositions.

The defendants argued the amendments were statute‑barred, would cause prejudice, lacked particulars, and were invalid because the underlying oral agreement contravened the Copyright Act.

The court held that amendments should generally be permitted under Rule 26.01 unless non‑compensable prejudice would result.

The court found the alleged cause of action arose after termination of the agreement in 2012, rejected arguments that the oral agreement was invalid under s. 13(4) of the Copyright Act, and concluded the proposed amendments raised triable issues.

Leave to amend was granted with limited exceptions, and the action was ordered transferred to Newmarket or Toronto.

A supplier of heavy equipment sued for payment of an invoice after performing quarry stripping work for the defendant.

The defendant admitted the work was completed and the invoice amount correct but argued the services were to be set off against a separate debt owed by a third company related to the supplier’s principal.

After reviewing testimony and documentary evidence, the court found no agreement for set-off, no cheque‑exchange arrangement, and no basis for legal or equitable set‑off or promissory estoppel.

The court held the plaintiff contracted directly with the defendant and was entitled to payment of the invoice.

The defendant’s counterclaim alleging misrepresentation and damages relating to the third party debt was dismissed.

Costs decision following a property dispute in which both parties claimed title to a cottage.

The plaintiff advanced claims based on proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment, while the defendant estate sought clear title.

The trial judgment granted the plaintiff a 15‑year licence to use the property, producing a mixed outcome.

In determining costs, the court considered proportionality and the factors under s.131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as settlement offers that did not engage Rule 49.

Finding the plaintiff was more successful overall, the court ordered the defendant estate to pay the plaintiff fixed costs of $50,000 all‑inclusive.

The insurer brought motions to set aside a noting in default and a default judgment in two actions brought by insured plaintiffs concerning obligations under a hold harmless agreement relating to unpaid accident benefit treatment accounts.

The insurer also sought summary judgment dismissing the actions, while the plaintiffs brought cross-motions for summary judgment.

The court held that the insurer had no plausible excuse for failing to deliver timely defences despite repeated warnings that strict compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure would be required.

Although the insurer may have had an arguable defence and brought its motion promptly, the prejudice to the elderly plaintiffs and the integrity of the administration of justice weighed against granting relief.

All motions were dismissed and the default judgment remained in force.

The plaintiff contractor sued a corporation and its director for breach of contract arising from unpaid plumbing and drainage services.

The parties had orally settled the debt by reducing the amount owed and arranging repayment through a loan amortization schedule, but no written settlement agreement or personal guarantee was executed.

The plaintiff alleged the director personally guaranteed repayment of the corporate debt.

The court found the evidence did not establish that the director promised a personal guarantee.

In any event, any such oral guarantee would be unenforceable under s. 4 of the Statute of Frauds because it was not in writing and signed.

The plaintiff, a Toronto lawyer and community volunteer, brought a defamation action against a newspaper and journalist over an article questioning transparency in the handling of donations from a charity concert organized to raise funds for victims of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake.

The court held that, read in context, the article did not convey a defamatory meaning about the plaintiff.

In any event, the defendants established the defences of substantial truth, fair comment on a matter of public interest, and responsible communication.

The court also found no evidence of malice and concluded that the plaintiff had not proven any meaningful reputational harm.

The plaintiff sought continuation of a Mareva injunction freezing assets in a civil fraud action alleging an international investment scheme involving silicon germanium transactions.

The defendants opposed continuation of the injunction, sought to expunge FINTRAC materials and a U.S. criminal complaint from the motion record, and alternatively requested that the plaintiff post security for the undertaking as to damages.

The court held that hearsay evidence contained in a U.S. criminal complaint was admissible on a motion under Rule 39.01(4) and that the FINTRAC report was properly disclosed through the RCMP and was both relevant and admissible.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, a risk of dissipation of assets, and no material non‑disclosure.

The Mareva injunction was continued and no order for security was imposed.

The plaintiff brought an undefended action seeking damages after her checked luggage went missing during international air travel from Canada to Togo.

She claimed extensive expenses, medical costs, emotional distress, and punitive damages following delays in recovering the baggage.

The court held that liability for lost or delayed baggage in international carriage by air is governed by the Montreal Convention, 1999, incorporated into Canadian law by the Carriage by Air Act, which limits recovery to 1,000 Special Drawing Rights unless additional insurance was purchased.

Claims for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and punitive damages were barred by the Convention.

The court awarded the capped compensation amount for delayed baggage together with reimbursement of an improperly charged airline upgrade fee.