Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The plaintiff brought an action for nuisance and property damage under the simplified procedure (Rule 76), seeking mandatory and injunctive relief.

At the outset of the trial, the defendants argued that the action was improperly commenced under Rule 76 because it sought injunctive relief, and asked the court to strike those claims.

The court rejected the defendants' argument, holding that Rule 76 does not preclude claims for injunctive or mandatory relief provided the action otherwise complies with the rule.

The court affirmed its equitable jurisdiction to grant such relief in simplified procedure actions and noted the defendants suffered no prejudice.

The Ouyang defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff under Rules 56.01(1)(a) and (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the defendants failed to prove the plaintiff resided outside Ontario under subrule (a).

However, under subrule (e), the court determined the plaintiff's claim against the Ouyang defendants appeared frivolous and vexatious, as the loan agreement was with a non-party corporation and guaranteed by another defendant, with no legal basis for the Ouyang defendants' liability.

The court also found insufficient evidence of the plaintiff's assets in Ontario.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post $25,000 in security for costs.

The respondent condominium corporation sought an order requiring the moving party unit owners to sell their unit or comply with the condominium's rules following a series of disputes between neighbours.

The moving parties moved to stay the application, arguing the dispute must first be mediated and arbitrated pursuant to s. 132(4) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court found that the core of the dispute related to the condominium's declaration, by-laws, and rules, rather than statutory breaches of ss. 117 and 119 that would bypass arbitration.

The court granted the motion and stayed the application pending mediation and arbitration, awarding costs to the moving parties.

Two competing class counsel groups sought carriage of a proposed class action against the Province of Ontario regarding COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care homes.

The Nisbet Action proposed suing Ontario solely for its several liability to avoid third-party claims and expedite certification.

The Robertson Action proposed a conventional joint and several liability approach, expecting third-party claims between Ontario and long-term care operators.

The court granted carriage to the Robertson Action, finding that the several liability approach offered no early-stage advantage and would create significant disadvantages in later-stage litigation, including potential unfairness to the defendant and risks of unrecovered losses for class members.

The plaintiff was wholly successful in a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement regarding environmental pollution.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the defendant overtly breached its settlement obligations and engaged in dilatory tactics.

The court found the defendant's conduct to be reprehensible, including attempting to secretly transfer assets and blocking remedial work.

The court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $212,532.99.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action seeking payment on two promissory notes and a declaration of entitlement to a matrimonial home based on a collateral mortgage.

The court found that the first promissory note, to which the mortgage was collateral, was paid off and materially altered without assent, rendering it and the mortgage unenforceable.

The second promissory note was found to be statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action and discharging the collateral mortgage.

The representative plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of inmates in Ontario correctional institutions who were placed in administrative segregation.

The plaintiff alleged that Ontario's use of administrative segregation constituted systemic negligence and violated sections 7 and 12 of the Charter.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court found that administrative segregation as practiced in Ontario was equivalent to solitary confinement and caused severe psychological harm, particularly to inmates with serious mental illness.

The court held that Ontario breached the inmates' Charter rights and was liable for systemic negligence at the operational level.

The court awarded $30 million in aggregate damages for compensation, vindication, and deterrence.

This costs endorsement arose from a motion to change initiated by the respondent father seeking specified in-person access to his child.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought adjustments to child support.

Following recommendations from the Office of the Children's Lawyer for minimal contact, the parties settled all substantive issues via a consent order, which provided for electronic communication only and did not grant the father his requested in-person access.

The court found the applicant mother to be the substantially successful party, noting the respondent's unreasonable conduct, including delays in financial disclosure, quitting a high-paying job, and relocating to Morocco, which impacted the mother's ability to pursue increased child support.

Despite the settlement, the court determined that costs were appropriate where success could be clearly ascertained.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff repair shop brought an action to recover amounts paid into court by the defendant vehicle owner under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

The plaintiff had repaired and stored a Ferrari leased to a third party that later went into receivership.

The court found that the plaintiff had valid non-possessory liens that became charges on the funds paid into court.

The court awarded the plaintiff $30,358.06 for the fair value of the repairs but dismissed the claim for storage charges due to insufficient evidence of fair value.

The Plaintiffs (Subway) sought a sealing order for 10 documents in a defamation action, comprising six financial documents and four private contracts.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) opposed the motion, citing the open courts principle.

The court applied the Sierra Club test, requiring a serious risk to an important interest and a balancing of salutary and deleterious effects.

The court found that the financial documents met the test due to detailed, commercially sensitive sales data that could provide competitors with an unearned advantage, and ordered them sealed.

However, the four private agreements (supplier and internal corporate structure agreements) were not sealed, as the potential harm from their disclosure was deemed speculative and did not outweigh the public interest in open courts.

No costs were awarded due to the mixed success and public interest nature of the opposition.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion to set aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation, the successful plaintiffs sought costs of $19,726.56, arguing for substantial indemnity based on an offer to settle.

The court found the offer was arguably not timely under Rule 49 and doubted whether a responding party on a motion is entitled to the same costs consequences as a plaintiff in an action.

Applying principles of proportionality and Rule 57, the court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs fixed at $10,187.30.

The defendant Toronto Transit Commission brought a motion to compel the plaintiff Aldea to produce 18 documents listed in Schedule "A" of her affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff refused to obtain these documents without upfront payment from the TTC, arguing they were available at third-party offices.

The court found that by listing documents in Schedule "A", the plaintiff admitted their relevance and could not object to their production or impose terms.

The court reiterated that it is the plaintiff's responsibility to secure and produce documents relied upon in their claim at their own expense.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to obtain and produce the documents and pay costs to the TTC.

The defendant brought a motion to strike out the plaintiff's jury notice, arguing it was served after the close of pleadings.

The plaintiff had amended her statement of claim multiple times, adding claims for defamation, breach of contract, and bad faith, and significantly increasing the damages sought.

The court found that the substantial amendments fundamentally altered the nature of the claim, meaning the pleadings were not closed when the jury notice was served.

The motion to strike the jury notice was dismissed.

DCM Erectors Inc. brought a motion to stay enforcement of an unopposed judgment, remove opposing counsel for conflict of interest, and set aside the judgment in a complex construction lien dispute.

The Master dismissed the requests to remove counsel and set aside the judgment, finding no impropriety in the joint representation of sub-trades and the surety.

However, the Master granted a stay of enforcement of the personal judgment against DCM, finding it would be unjust to allow the surety to enforce assigned sub-trade debts against DCM while simultaneously resisting payment to DCM on its own lien claim.

In a group of related civil proceedings involving multiple plaintiffs and the same defendants, the court considered a request concerning the deadline for filing third party claims.

Following a prior order, the parties jointly sought an extension of time to file all third party claims.

The court granted the request on consent and extended the deadline to September 25, 2015.

The endorsement reflects a procedural timetable adjustment rather than a substantive determination of the underlying claims.

The applicant tenant sought an interlocutory injunction to remain in possession of a commercial restaurant space after the landlord unilaterally terminated lease renewal negotiations and leased the premises to a new tenant.

The landlord brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application and terminate the lease.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the landlord's duty of honest contractual performance, as the landlord remained silent about rejecting the tenant's renewal offer while secretly negotiating with a new tenant.

The court granted a three-month interlocutory injunction to allow the tenant to relocate and dismissed the landlord's cross-motion for summary judgment.

A municipality brought an application seeking a finding of contempt against a property owner for failing to comply with court orders requiring compliance with building permit requirements and cessation of construction.

The court held that two earlier orders could not ground a contempt finding, including a prior contempt order imposing a fine.

However, the respondent was found to have willfully breached a subsequent order requiring him to obtain building permits, cease construction, and demolish unlawfully erected structures.

The court rejected the respondent’s argument that the municipality acted unreasonably in refusing permits and concluded that the respondent deliberately disregarded municipal building code requirements and court orders.

A finding of contempt was entered beyond a reasonable doubt, a committal warrant for 30 days’ imprisonment was issued, the municipality was authorized to demolish the structures, and costs were awarded.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty arising from the alleged transmission of a sexually transmitted disease during their marriage.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the statement of defence as scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that a spousal relationship could not give rise to a per se or ad hoc fiduciary duty to disclose a known or suspected sexually transmitted disease.

The court granted the plaintiff's cross-motion, striking several paragraphs of the statement of defence that were inflammatory, irrelevant, or improperly pleaded motive.

Following a decision that granted a motion to strike certain affidavit evidence but dismissed an application challenging an arbitral award, both parties sought costs.

The respondent, successful on the application, sought substantial indemnity costs, while the applicant sought costs for its successful motion to strike.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs to either party, finding the conduct did not reach the threshold of reprehensible behaviour and there were no settlement offers.

The court held that each side had partial success and that reasonable partial indemnity costs would be similar for both.

As a result, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs.

The moving parties sought an order under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to stay or dismiss an Ontario action for lack of jurisdiction or on the basis that Italy was the proper forum.

The action alleged breach of contract and inducement of breach relating to an agreement dividing inherited Italian real property among family members following the completion of succession proceedings in Italy.

Applying the jurisdictional framework in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that Ontario had a real and substantial connection to the dispute because the parties resided in Ottawa, the agreement was signed there, and the alleged breach occurred there.

The court rejected arguments that Italian succession law governed the dispute or that Italy was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The motion to dismiss or stay the action was therefore dismissed.