Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The plaintiff, Gary Sauve, brought a motion seeking procedural relief to pursue claims, primarily against his former employer, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), for alleged harms leading to his discharge.

He also sought to re-litigate multiple proceedings previously pursued in the Federal Court of Canada.

The court found the plaintiff's materials incomprehensible and unsupported by admissible evidence.

The motion was dismissed, as the continuation of the action was deemed manifestly vexatious, an abuse of process, and the claims were long since statute-barred.

The plaintiff's requests for state-funded counsel, a fee waiver, injunctive relief, and joining additional defendants were also denied due to lack of supporting evidence.

The moving party, an estate trustee, brought a motion to add her sister as a respondent to two consolidated applications: an application to pass accounts and an application for the removal of the estate trustee.

The sister and her daughter opposed the joinder.

The court found that the sister was an interested party who had demanded an accounting and was a possible beneficiary of the estate.

Applying Rules 5.03 and 9.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court concluded that the sister was a necessary party whose rights could be affected by the outcome.

The motion was granted, and the sister was ordered to be added as a party to both applications.

The plaintiff sought costs of $7,500 on a partial indemnity scale following a motion by the defendants for leave to amend their defence and a cross-motion by the plaintiff to strike paragraphs.

The defendants argued that success was divided and parties should bear their own costs.

The court found the plaintiff was substantially successful, as every disputed paragraph was struck in whole or in part, necessitating substantial amendments by the defendants.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $6,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff sued for damages, claiming an equitable life estate or option to purchase a residential property based on an unwritten agreement.

The plaintiff had originally owned the property but lost it to foreclosure, after which he remained as a tenant under successive owners.

The court found the plaintiff's claims to be entirely fabricated and contradicted by documentary evidence, including a lease in which he explicitly released all claims to the property.

The action was dismissed.

The self-represented applicant lawyer brought an application against the Law Society of Ontario and several individuals following online disputes and subsequent professional complaints.

The matter came before the court on a regular motions list but was plagued by procedural irregularities, including improper service, failure to file application records, and disputes over representation.

The court adjourned the matter to a special appointment hearing, provided strict timetables for the filing of materials, and dismissed the applicant's request to remove opposing counsel from the record for alleged sharp practice.

The self-represented defendant brought an ex parte motion seeking an adjournment of a summary trial, consolidation of actions, and revisions to a discovery plan.

The plaintiffs brought a separate motion in a newly commenced related action seeking its dismissal as an abuse of process.

The court found that neither motion was ready for hearing due to late service of materials and unrealistic time estimates.

Both motions were adjourned to a special appointment hearing, with a temporary stay imposed on the new action.

A case management conference was held to address amendments to the discovery timetable and issues arising from the recent production of approximately 4,000 documents by the defendant.

On consent, the court amended the discovery timetable while maintaining the existing expert report timetable.

The conference was adjourned to allow the defendant to investigate and clarify which of the recently produced documents were new versus already produced.

The court held a case management conference in a land dispute action involving a failed real estate transaction and a discharged certificate of pending litigation.

The court issued procedural directions regarding the amendment of pleadings, demands for particulars, and discussions on security for costs, while setting dates for examinations for discovery and the next case management conference.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and awarded damages by a jury.

The defendant brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory requirement of a permanent serious impairment.

The court reviewed medical evidence showing the plaintiff suffered from chronic pain, depression, and cognitive deficits from a mild traumatic brain injury, which prevented him from completing high school or working.

The court found the injuries substantially interfered with his usual activities of daily living and were continuous and permanent.

The defendant's motion was dismissed.

On a motion for default judgment, the court held the former intimate partner liable for repeated assault and battery and for publicly disclosing a sexually explicit video of the plaintiff without her consent.

The court also held the former partner's parents liable in negligence under the Occupier's Liability Act for failing to take reasonable steps to protect the plaintiff from foreseeable abuse occurring in their home.

The court expressly recognized in Ontario the tort of public disclosure of private facts and applied it to non-consensual online publication of an intimate video.

General, aggravated, and punitive damages were awarded, together with injunctive relief requiring destruction of intimate materials and prohibiting further disclosure.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of Luciano Sammut's application for adverse possession.

The respondent, Heather McGhee Peggs, sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the application was commenced to interfere with her property sale.

The court found no reprehensible conduct by the applicant to warrant substantial indemnity costs and determined that Rule 49.10 did not apply to the respondent's offer to settle as the applicant's claim failed.

Considering the importance of the boundary issue, the complexity, and comparable counsel time, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis at $32,267.53, inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be paid by the applicant.

The plaintiff sued her real estate agent and broker for negligence after a real estate transaction failed to close.

The defendants issued a third party claim against the plaintiff's litigation counsel, alleging they were negligent in their conduct of the prior litigation regarding the failed transaction.

The third parties brought a motion to strike the third party claim.

The court granted the motion, finding that the third parties were not implicated in the events giving rise to the initial loss, and any alleged negligence by the plaintiff's counsel in mitigating the loss could be raised as a defence against the plaintiff directly.

The defendant was successful on a motion for summary judgment and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $73,904.88, or alternatively $58,976.58 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the amount was excessive and suggested $20,000.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs as there was no offer to settle or reprehensible conduct.

Finding overlap and excessive hours in the defendant's bill of costs, the court awarded the defendant $25,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements on a partial indemnity scale.

A private elector brought a motion for an interim and interlocutory injunction restraining a municipal councillor from attending or voting at city council meetings pending an application challenging the validity of the councillor’s election on residency grounds.

The court applied the three‑part test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR‑MacDonald and found that although there was a serious question to be tried, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

The court also held that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the councillor to continue performing his duties, particularly given the public interest in municipal governance.

The requested injunction would effectively grant the ultimate relief sought prior to adjudication on the merits.

The defendant corporation moved to set aside a default judgment obtained after a damages hearing arising from the sale of allegedly faulty woodworking equipment.

The court applied the test under Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring the moving party to explain the default, bring the motion without undue delay, and demonstrate a triable defence.

Although the defendant advanced an arguable defence, the court found the corporate principal knew of service of the statement of claim, delayed bringing the motion for strategic reasons, and provided unreliable affidavit evidence.

The court also found prejudice to the plaintiff due to the death of a key witness involved in the transaction.

Balancing the interests of justice, the motion to set aside the default judgment was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 30.04(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking early production of documents held by a municipal employer relating to a complaint and investigation that allegedly led to the plaintiff’s employment termination.

The documents were said to be necessary to properly plead claims including defamation and negligent investigation.

The municipality resisted production prior to the close of pleadings while also indicating an intention to bring a Rule 21 motion to strike the claim.

The court held that the requested documents were essential to allow the plaintiffs to properly plead their causes of action and respond to a demand for particulars.

Early production was ordered to ensure fairness and avoid prejudice where the responding party controlled the key documents.

Following a trial concerning ownership of a residential property, the successful plaintiff sought costs after obtaining a declaration of a one-half interest in the property.

The court considered a Rule 49 offer to settle under the Rules of Civil Procedure in which the plaintiff had offered to sell her interest for $250,000, which the estate declined.

Evidence of comparable sales indicated the property value exceeded $500,000, meaning the plaintiff achieved a better result at trial.

The court held that Rule 49 consequences applied, awarding partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Costs were ordered against the estate but not against the co-defendant who had assigned his interest before trial.

Following dismissal of a civil action alleging assault, unlawful arrest and detention, and breaches of Charter rights against several police-related defendants, the successful defendants sought costs of a ten‑day trial.

The plaintiff opposed the amount, arguing the bill of costs was excessive, that some issues were not fully successful, and that personal financial hardship should mitigate the award.

The court reviewed the lengthy procedural history, the defendants’ partial indemnity rates, the existence of a prior offer to settle, and the defendants’ complete success on the core liability issues.

Finding the bill of costs reasonable and modest given the complexity and duration of the proceeding, and noting the absence of evidence supporting impecuniosity, the court awarded the defendants their costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion for judgment after noting the defendant in default for failing to file a statement of defence in time.

The statement of claim sought $15,000 in general damages, loss of income, or loss of competitive advantage.

The court held that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the damages claimed.

The motion for judgment was denied, but the plaintiff was granted leave to obtain a date for an assessment of damages.

In a Commercial List proceeding involving allegations of fraudulent client statements and failure to supervise a securities representative, the court addressed repeated failures by the parties to comply with procedural timetables and case management orders.

The action had been scheduled twice for summary judgment but the parties failed to complete materials and examinations.

The court previously directed the matter to proceed as a hybrid trial with affidavit evidence-in-chief and cross‑examination at trial, but a self‑represented defendant failed to comply with orders to deliver evidence and served a deficient statement of defence consisting of a blanket denial.

At a further case management attendance, the court declined to make additional procedural orders and instead required the parties to choose between continuing under the hybrid trial timetable on the Commercial List or pursuing conventional discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure, in which case the matter would be transferred to the Civil List.