Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The defendant insurance company brought a motion to quash a summons to examine an employee (an insurance adjuster) for a pending motion to compel answers to discovery refusals and to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff sought to examine the adjuster to test the relevance and proportionality of the defendant's broad production requests spanning forty years of documents related to historical sexual abuse claims.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the proposed examination was relevant to the underlying motion, necessary for fair adjudication, and not an abuse of process.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from dealing with estate assets and sought orders directing third parties to release hospital records, telephone records, and the defendant's will.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to strike the Statement of Claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and for being frivolous and an abuse of process.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a recognizable duty of care owed by the defendant, who was acting as attorney for personal care pursuant to a valid power of attorney.

The court struck the claim without leave to amend and dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding it was motivated by personal turmoil and collateral purposes rather than a viable legal claim.

A dispute arising from a failed gas station development venture.

The plaintiff invested $350,000 for a 50% interest in a company owning a property in Thorndale, Ontario, with the defendant agreeing to complete development obligations in exchange for a 50% interest for $50.

The relationship deteriorated due to lack of communication and delays.

The defendants sold the property to a third party without the plaintiff's knowledge or authorization.

The plaintiff obtained a certificate of pending litigation and commenced litigation.

The property was eventually returned to the original company.

The court found the defendants liable for oppression and fraud, ordered a shotgun buy-sell arrangement based on independent appraisal, and awarded damages at large.

In this post-verdict decision following a 20-day jury trial in a historical sexual assault case, the court addressed four issues: (1) whether to amend the statement of claim to reflect the jury's verdict exceeding the pleaded amounts; (2) whether to set aside or reduce the $1,000,000 punitive damages award against the estate; (3) whether the defendant organization should be held severally rather than jointly liable; and (4) the appropriate pre-judgment interest rates.

The plaintiff was awarded $400,000 in general and aggravated damages, $940,000 for past income loss, and $50,000 for future counselling, with the jury apportioning liability 75% to the estate and 25% to the organization.

The court upheld the jury verdict in all respects, granting the amendment to the pleading, refusing to interfere with the punitive damages award, maintaining joint and several liability, and awarding pre-judgment interest at 5% on non-pecuniary damages from June 1992 and 2% on pecuniary damages from June 1992, calculated bi-annually.

A motion by a real estate brokerage to dismiss and strike a counterclaim brought against it by a self-represented defendant.

The defendant alleged that the brokerage was vicariously liable for the conduct of one of its agents in a private real estate transaction.

The court found that the agent had cancelled the listing agreements and thereafter conducted the sale and lease transactions in her personal capacity, without the brokerage's involvement or knowledge.

The court granted the motion, dismissing the counterclaim on the basis that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, that the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and that the counterclaim was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The defendants appealed an associate justice's decision dismissing their rule 5 motion to remove individual defendants and professional corporation defendants from a wrongful dismissal and breach of contract claim brought by former partners of a law firm.

The defendants also brought a pleadings motion under rules 25.06 and 25.11 to strike the statement of claim.

The court upheld the associate justice's decision, finding that the individual defendants and professional corporation defendants were properly joined under rule 5.02(2)(c) because there was doubt as to the person or persons from whom the plaintiffs were entitled to relief.

The court rejected arguments that the pleading was vague or scandalous, finding it adequately pleaded the claims against all defendants.

The court dismissed both the appeal and the pleadings motion.

The defendants brought a motion to strike out the third party claim as disclosing no cause of action.

The third party claim named 27 different third parties, including individual shareholders and their spouses, corporate entities, the plaintiffs' bank, and the plaintiffs' lawyers.

The court found that the third party claim was based on bald allegations without material facts and failed to meet the minimal pleading standards.

The court struck the third party claim in its entirety with leave to amend and awarded costs to the third parties on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for damages arising from the defendants' breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for residential property.

The defendants agreed to purchase the property for $1,600,000 with an August 15, 2022 closing date but failed to close because the sale of their own home did not complete.

The plaintiffs subsequently resold the property to third parties for $1,325,000.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the agreement was unconditional, the defendants breached by failing to close, and the plaintiffs took reasonable mitigation steps.

The court awarded damages of $169,376.51 after deducting the forfeited deposit and saved commissions.

The defendants brought a motion to amend their pleadings by delivering a Fresh As Amended Statement of Defence and Crossclaim.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the defendants had made admissions in the proceeding and that Rule 51.05 governing withdrawal of admissions applied.

The court found that while the defendants had made certain admissions regarding the promissory note and advances of funds, the proposed amendments did not seek to resile from those core admissions.

Rather, the defendants sought to plead alternative circumstances regarding the nature of the transaction, including rectification, set-off, and damages claims.

The court granted leave to amend, except for the non est factum defence, which was precluded by the defendants' prior admissions regarding the promissory note.

The plaintiffs sought over $16 million in consequential economic losses following a natural gas explosion and fire in the laundry room of their apartment building.

They claimed the explosion caused high vacancy rates, prevented rent increases, and diminished the building's value upon its sale five years later.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove the hypothetical losses were caused by the explosion rather than their own business decisions, such as a disruptive elevator modernization project.

The court assessed the actual diminution in value and economic loss at $156,631, which was fully offset by $162,457.81 already paid by the plaintiffs' insurer.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial in a commercial dispute involving unpaid accounts.

The plaintiff was partially successful in its claim, recovering $430,809, while its claim for additional amounts based on oral agreements was dismissed.

The defendants' counterclaim was entirely dismissed.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff as the successful party, fixing costs at $150,000 in fees and $62,210.53 in disbursements on a partial indemnity basis.

The court rejected arguments for cost shifting based on a Rule 49 settlement offer that was less than the judgment and declined to impose sanctions based on allegations of impropriety made by either party.

In this putative securities class action arising from alleged misconduct by the former CEO of Endeavour Mining, the plaintiffs moved for an order requiring defendants to deliver statements of defence and produce insurance information by November 21, 2025.

The defendants opposed both requests, arguing that no statement of defence is required before leave to proceed is granted under the Securities Act, and that insurance information disclosure is premature.

The court dismissed both aspects of the motion, finding that prior to OSA leave being granted, the statutory claim is a nullity and therefore no defence is required, and that insurance disclosure is premature absent settlement discussions or leave being granted.

The court dismissed a motion to strike the jury notice following closing arguments in a negligence trial arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs objected to 19 statements made by defence counsel in his closing address, alleging they were inflammatory, invited improper reasoning, misstated the law, and appealed to emotion.

The court found some statements objectionable but determined that corrective jury instructions were sufficient to remedy any prejudice, making discharge of the jury unnecessary.

The jury subsequently found the defendants liable in negligence, apportioning liability at 93% to one defendant and 7% to the other.

Three consolidated applications concerning the duty of various insurers to defend Ontario in connection with a bridge collapse in Elgin County in 2018.

Ontario sought orders requiring Aviva Insurance Company of Canada and Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada to defend two related lawsuits and to share defence costs equally.

The insurers argued they had no duty to defend or, alternatively, that defence costs should be allocated on a "time on risk" basis.

The court found that Aviva and RSA owed a duty to defend based on the allegations of property damage to anchor rods occurring during their respective policy periods, despite the loss of use occurring after the policies expired.

The court rejected the "all sums" approach and adopted a "time on risk" allocation, requiring Aviva to pay 5.5% and RSA to pay 11.1% of defence costs.

The secondary applications by Aviva and RSA against AIG and St. Paul were dismissed as moot.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction to freeze approximately $6.1 million in settlement funds held in the defendant's solicitor's trust account.

The funds were allegedly derived from a fraudulent investment scheme involving the defendant corporation, which was controlled by individuals connected to a Ponzi scheme operated by Arash Missaghi.

The plaintiffs alleged they were induced to invest substantial sums through misrepresentation and fraud.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, finding the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of fraud, that assets were in the jurisdiction, that there was a risk of dissipation, and that irreparable harm would result if the funds were distributed.

The court also allowed the defendant to withdraw $250,000 from the frozen funds for legal expenses.

The defendants brought a motion to strike two Fresh as Amended Claims filed by the self-represented plaintiff.

The plaintiff had purported to amend her claims on April 1, 2025, claiming consent from the defendants pursuant to Rule 26.02(b).

However, the defendants denied providing consent.

The court found that the plaintiff had misused prior consents from 2020 and 2021 that were unrelated to the 2025 amendments, constituting an abuse of process.

The court struck the Fresh as Amended Claims but granted limited leave to amend the original pleadings to include certain new relief provisions (Charter damages and mandatory orders) that did not introduce new facts beyond the limitation period.

The court also adjusted the schedule for pending summary judgment motions and awarded costs to the defendants.

This is a costs decision following a nine-day trial in a breach of contract case concerning the distribution of proceeds from the 2012 sale of a company owned by the parties.

The plaintiff was awarded $405,199 out of a total claim of $2,319,567, representing only 18% of the amount claimed.

The plaintiff succeeded on one of three main issues (the distribution of profits after the 2012 sale) but failed on the validity/enforceability of amending agreements and the allocation of salaries.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff as the successful party, but reduced the amount to account for the time and resources spent on unsuccessful issues.

The plaintiffs sued the Halton Police Board and individual officers for tort damages arising from an alleged trespass and police assault in Fall 2021.

The court heard multiple motions: (1) to amend the statement of claim to substitute and add defendants; (2) to examine a non-party for discovery; and (3) to discontinue a counterclaim.

The court granted leave to substitute Officer Bowes for Officer John Doe #2, Officer Pinkney for Officer John Doe #1, and Sara Nielsen for Jane Doe.

The court dismissed the motion to add Officers Proulx, Forde, Blanchard, and Vander Heyden as defendants due to expiry of the limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion to examine Ekaterina Latour for discovery due to improper service and lack of relevance.

The court permitted discontinuance of Michael Krog's counterclaim and awarded costs against him.

The court also awarded costs to the Police defendants against the plaintiffs for the unsuccessful motion to add defendants.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to commence a class action against the Crown and Crown employees for losses suffered from investments in syndicated mortgage investments marketed by Tier 1 Transaction Advisory Services Inc. The defendants moved to strike an affidavit from Krista Zingel on the grounds that she is not a compellable witness under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of that Act.

During cross-examination of the defendant Monid on his affidavit, the plaintiffs sought rulings on the propriety of objections to various questions.

The court ruled on the scope of cross-examination on a leave motion, considering relevance, proportionality, and improper legal argument.

The plaintiffs, a law firm, brought a motion for further and better affidavits of documents from two defendants (spouses) and for their further examination for discovery.

The defendants refused to answer certain discovery questions based on spousal privilege.

The court determined that under section 11 of the Ontario Evidence Act, spousal privilege applies only to communications received from a spouse, not communications made to a spouse.

Therefore, each defendant must disclose their communications sent to their spouse but may claim privilege over communications received from their spouse.

The plaintiffs were successful and awarded costs.