Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The court considered a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous and vexatious.

The statement of claim was found to be very poorly pleaded and would require amendment to allow a response.

The court ordered that the plaintiff be given notice and an opportunity to make submissions as to why the claim should not be dismissed, and stayed the action pending the outcome of the written hearing.

Following a personal injury trial where the plaintiff was awarded damages but found 25% contributorily negligent, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought over $817,000 in costs and disbursements, arguing for substantial indemnity costs from the date of a Rule 49 offer.

The defendants argued for an award of $380,000 inclusive of disbursements.

The court rejected the application of substantial indemnity costs, finding the trial result was not a 'near miss' to the plaintiff's offer.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs at $500,000 all-inclusive on a partial indemnity scale.

The parties in a class action jointly sought an adjournment of the trial commencement to allow time to finalize settlement discussions.

The court granted the adjournment, moving the trial start date from February 1, 2021, to February 16, 2021, noting that no further adjournments would be granted.

Aeon Sodding Corp. sued The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) for breach of contract after discovering that a "legal professional" it had retained, Steven Mann, was a fraudster who had performed no work despite receiving over $430,000 via an RBC Visa card.

Aeon sought a chargeback from RBC, which was denied due to time limits under Visa rules.

RBC brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss Aeon's action.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that RBC exercised reasonable care in handling the chargeback request and that Aeon's claim was barred by a verification clause in the Visa Agreement, which required disputes to be raised within 30 days of the statement period.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of a contempt motion brought by the plaintiffs against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CAST), its counsel, and legal assistant.

The court found the motion to be without merit and the defendants wholly successful.

Despite the plaintiff being self-represented and having been warned about costs, the court determined that costs should follow the event due to the serious nature of the allegations.

Applying the factors under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and balancing the indemnity principle with access to justice, the court awarded the defendants $7,500 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, a reduction from their requested $10,000.

Supplementary reasons following an order setting aside a registrar's dismissal for delay.

The court declined to award costs to either party, finding that while the plaintiff was successful, it had received an indulgence and the defendants' opposition was reasonable.

The court also resolved a dispute over the discovery plan, ordering the plaintiff to produce the representative chosen by the defendants for examination for discovery, and setting an attendance fee for witnesses travelling to Toronto.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff alleged that she and her late husband gave the proceeds from the sale of two properties to the defendants in trust, and that these funds were used to purchase a condominium to be held in trust for the plaintiff.

The defendant argued the funds were legitimate payouts for discharged mortgages.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding the documentary evidence supported the defendant's position that the funds were mortgage payouts, not trust funds.

The court rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the mortgages were shams designed to avoid creditors.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for summary judgment regarding a real estate transaction deposit, the parties were unable to settle the quantum of costs.

The respondent sought $31,015.72 on a partial indemnity basis, while the applicant argued for approximately $11,000.

The court found the time spent by the respondent's counsel reasonable but reduced the partial indemnity hourly rate from 80% to 60% of the actual rate.

Costs were fixed at $24,314.82 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiffs sued the school board, a vice-principal, and a former student for events that occurred in September 2009, alleging false imprisonment, malicious intent, and negligence after the plaintiff student was arrested for uttering threats.

The court found the defendants' evidence credible, rejected the plaintiffs' allegations of a grudge or malicious intent by the vice-principal, and concluded the confinement of the student during the investigation was justified.

The action was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's medical malpractice action on the basis that the limitation period had expired.

The defendant argued the plaintiff discovered the claim when he learned a nerve had been cut during surgery.

The court found that knowledge of a cut nerve, without reason to believe it was more than an unfortunate surgical outcome, was insufficient to start the limitation period.

The defendant's motion was dismissed, and partial summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff dismissing the limitation period defence.

This decision addresses multiple motions in a long-standing family law enforcement action.

The court granted Khatija Khatri's application to vacate a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and other instruments from title to Bellwood Farm, finding the CPL had no legal basis after a prior order was set aside and the underlying application dismissed.

The court also granted Mohammad Munir Subhani and Khatija Khatri's motion to dismiss the action against them for inordinate and inexcusable delay, citing prejudice due to fading memories and health issues of key witnesses.

Talat Khan's motion for a new CPL was dismissed due to the dismissal of the action against those defendants and her own delay.

However, Talat Khan's motion for the reinstatement of a Writ of Seizure and Sale (No. 98-0259) was granted, as it was a support enforcement writ under the Family Law Rules and thus did not expire, and its removal was improper.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a protracted action where the defendants were found to have improperly distrained and illegally used the plaintiffs' trade fixtures for eight years, resulting in an award of over $100,000 in damages and $80,000 in exemplary damages.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $95,000 for costs, plus HST and disbursements of $10,491.42, applying partial indemnity up to an August 11, 2015 offer and substantial indemnity thereafter, guided by the principle that costs awards should be fair and reasonable.

The plaintiff real estate broker brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant property owner for an unpaid leasing commission.

The owner cross-moved to dismiss the claim, arguing its property manager lacked actual authority to enter into the listing agreement on its behalf.

The court found that the property management agreement granted the manager actual authority to arrange for advertising and promotion, which included engaging a broker.

The court further held that the plaintiff was entitled to the commission because a valid offer to lease was received during the listing period and the owner's agent breached the agreement by failing to refer the prospective tenant to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted and the defendant's cross-motion was dismissed.

Following a prior decision granting summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff, the court considered the issue of costs.

The plaintiff sought costs of the summary judgment motion and the proceeding to date.

The court noted that the potential range of damages remained uncertain and could significantly affect the appropriate costs disposition.

Because damages might ultimately be minimal or reflect only disgorgement of profit, the court held that the proper allocation of costs could not yet be determined.

Costs were therefore reserved pending the final determination of damages.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside an order noting him in default and to vary or set aside the order pursuant to Rules 19.08, 19.03, and 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reviewed the circumstances leading to the default, including the defendant’s failure to retain new counsel or file a notice of intention to act in person after his counsel was removed from the record and his decision to leave the country shortly before a motion to strike his defence was heard.

The defendant provided no satisfactory explanation for failing to attend the motion or arrange representation despite receiving notice that the opposing party would not consent to an adjournment.

The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate an adequate explanation for the default or establish the necessary factors to justify setting aside the noting in default.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The moving parties sought to dismiss an application challenging a continuing power of attorney and seeking various related remedies on the basis of res judicata.

They argued that similar issues had already been raised in related proceedings and resolved through minutes of settlement.

The court held that the doctrine of res judicata requires a final judicial determination between the same parties or their privies, and that a private settlement agreement without a court order does not constitute such a determination.

Because the responding party was not a party to the settlement and no judicial decision resolved the issues, the prerequisites for cause of action estoppel or issue estoppel were not met.

The motion to dismiss the application was therefore denied.

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

The defendant argued the lawyer had previously acted for related entities and had been involved in matters connected to employment agreements and a corporate asset purchase that later resulted in an amalgamation.

Applying the principles from MacDonald Estate v Martin, the court held that the former relationship was not sufficiently related to the present retainer to justify disqualification.

The court also found no evidence that relevant confidential information had been imparted.

The appeal was dismissed and the master's decision was upheld.

The applicant sought declarations that a life insurance policy issued in 1982 should be enforced according to its original terms, including paid‑up value calculations appearing on the face of the policy.

The respondent insurer alleged that the paid‑up values in the policy were inserted in error and sought rectification to reduce them by a factor of five.

The record contained conflicting affidavit evidence and competing expert opinions regarding the intended structure of the policy and the calculation of paid‑up values.

The court held that the disputes involved material factual conflicts, credibility assessments, and complex issues relating to rectification and limitation periods.

As a result, the matter could not properly be resolved on an application record and required a trial.

The plaintiff accounting firm sued for payment of unpaid professional fees totaling $62,061.25 for accounting and advisory services provided to the defendants over several years.

The defendants acknowledged that services were provided but argued the bills were excessive and that their balance had previously been represented as nil.

The court accepted the credibility of the plaintiff’s principal witness and found that substantial services had been performed, but concluded the billing documentation lacked sufficient detail to justify the full claim.

The court reduced the account by approximately 15% and apportioned liability between corporate services and personal services related to matrimonial litigation.

Judgment was granted for reduced amounts against the corporate defendants and the individual defendant personally.

Following a civil judgment awarding $3.5 million, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs and pre-judgment interest.

The parties agreed the successful party was entitled to partial indemnity costs to September 30, 2010 and substantial indemnity costs thereafter but disputed the applicable hourly rates.

The court fixed partial indemnity rates for counsel after mediation and accepted substantial indemnity rates calculated at 1.5 times the partial indemnity rate pursuant to Rule 1.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also addressed deductions for certain attendances and confirmed taxable disbursements.

Pre-judgment interest was ordered on the judgment amount from August 27, 2003 at 3.3% pursuant to s.127(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.