Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The court dismissed a motion for partial summary judgment brought by the defendants, Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP and its partners, in a professional negligence action arising from advice and services provided in connection with an employee stock trust and a 2012 financing transaction.

The court found that the case involved complex factual disputes, credibility issues, and conflicting expert evidence regarding the scope of the defendants’ retainer and standard of care.

The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate given the need for a full trial to resolve these issues, and also noted the risk of inconsistent findings due to parallel actions involving related parties and issues.

Le demandeur a intenté une action en jugement déclaratoire contre le procureur général et le lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil, alléguant que le Tribunal des droits de la personne de l'Ontario (TDPO) ne comptait aucun membre capable d'entendre sa cause en français.

Les défendeurs ont présenté une motion en radiation de la déclaration.

La Cour supérieure a accueilli la motion, concluant d'une part qu'elle n'avait pas compétence puisque le litige concernait l'exercice d'une compétence légale relevant de la compétence exclusive de la Cour divisionnaire en matière de révision judiciaire.

D'autre part, la Cour a conclu que la déclaration ne révélait aucune cause d'action raisonnable, car la demande était prématurée et théorique, le demandeur n'ayant pris aucune démarche auprès du TDPO pour faire avancer son dossier ou demander une audience en français.

The landlord applied for a writ of possession and to terminate a commercial lease, while the tenant applied for a declaration that the termination was invalid.

The dispute centered on the allocation of realty taxes and occupancy costs.

The court found that while the landlord's method of allocating taxes by square footage was a reasonable exercise of its contractual discretion, it could not charge the tenant for taxes related to the parking garage.

Furthermore, the landlord was not entitled to terminate the lease because it had previously agreed to defer tax discussions and had failed to provide the required annual estimates and reconciliations for occupancy costs.

The court also held that, in the alternative, the tenant would be entitled to relief from forfeiture.

The plaintiff sued the defendant police service for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and wrongful arrest after criminal charges against him were withdrawn.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions refused during discovery, arguing that communications between the plaintiff and his criminal defence lawyer were relevant to whether the charges were terminated in his favour.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the communications irrelevant to the tort claims and protected by solicitor-client privilege, which had not been waived.

The court also declined to order the plaintiff to obtain records for a destroyed cellphone owned by a third party.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against him arising from a three-way motor vehicle accident.

The defendant brought the motion before submitting to discovery and relied solely on a lawyer's double-hearsay affidavit rather than providing his own direct evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the record was insufficiently developed to permit a fair and just determination of the issues on the merits, and drew an adverse inference from the defendant's failure to provide his own evidence.

The plaintiffs brought a Rule 21 motion to determine the effect of a Pierringer Agreement and a prior court order on the remaining claims against the non-settling defendant and subsequent third and fourth parties.

The court clarified that the prior order restricted the plaintiffs' claim against the remaining defendant to several liability, but did not affect the remaining defendant's ability to pursue contribution from third parties.

The motion was resolved with all parties ultimately agreeing on this interpretation, and costs were deferred to the pre-trial or trial judge.

Nadire Atas sought permission to appeal a court decision (2020 ONSC 3471) that denied her application to rescind a judgment (2018 ONSC 58) declaring her a vexatious litigant.

The court found that her request for permission to appeal was itself vexatious and denied it, stating she had not identified an appealable issue.

The plaintiffs filed affidavits containing confidential information about a minor child (Student Q) and her family, breaching a prior confidentiality order (Penny Order).

The defendants and Student Q's family successfully moved to have these affidavits removed/redacted.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct reprehensible and deserving of reprimand, rejecting their arguments of inadvertence and access to justice without evidence of impecuniosity.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to Student Q's family, and reduced costs to the defendants, totaling $41,633.44, payable by the plaintiffs.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident claim, arguing it was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to meet their evidentiary burden to establish there was no serious issue requiring a trial regarding the discoverability of the claim, specifically whether the plaintiff's injuries met the "threshold" for non-pecuniary damages within the limitation period.

The court also found that the matter was not suitable for resolution using expanded summary judgment powers due to overlapping evidence with the merits of the claim.

This endorsement rules on which questions regarding damages claims (future treatment costs, medication, income loss) for Catherine and John McNamee will be put to the jury.

The court found insufficient evidence to support several of the plaintiffs' claims for future care costs and income loss, declining to put those specific questions to the jury.

The ruling emphasizes the need for precise evidence and medical justification for future care costs and a clear evidentiary foundation for income loss claims to avoid speculation.

Following a decision where the defendants' cross-motion to stay the plaintiff law firm's action pending an assessment of accounts was granted, both parties sought costs.

The defendants claimed $9,553.98 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff claimed $24,611.67 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found that there was divided success and that both sides had taken disproportionate and inappropriate steps in the litigation.

Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs.

Following a partial summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, the court determined the reserved costs of the motion.

The plaintiff sought full indemnity costs based on a contractual indemnity provision.

The court affirmed its discretion to ensure costs are fair and reasonable despite the contractual term.

The court awarded solicitor and client costs but deducted $5,000 due to the plaintiff's delay in correcting misnamed defendants, fixing total costs at $39,803.18.

The plaintiffs, Aden and Shirley Bowman, purchased a home that was later discovered to have severe undisclosed water and mould damage.

They brought an action against the vendors (Alma and Shelley Emond), their home inspector (Paul Studholme), and their real estate agent (Suzanne Martineau) and brokerage (Re/Max Hallmark Realty Limited).

The court found the real estate agent negligent for failing to provide and review the Seller Property Information Statement (SPIS) and for not disclosing known ongoing roof leaks.

The vendors were also found liable for concealing serious and ongoing leakage.

The home inspector was found not liable.

Liability was apportioned 70% to Martineau/Re/Max and 30% to the Emonds.

Damages were awarded based on the cost to repair the property, including consequential damages from foundation heaving, and out-of-pocket expenses.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim in an employment dispute over unpaid commissions, and sought to make an interlocutory injunction permanent.

The court also addressed the distribution of materials seized under an Anton Piller order.

The court declined to make the injunction permanent, finding the test was not met and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The court refused to strike the claims for unpaid commissions based on the limitation period, as discoverability was a genuine issue for trial.

However, the court struck the claims for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation and loss of future income, granting the plaintiff leave to amend.

The plaintiff fell from the flatbed of a pick-up truck operated by the defendant, a teammate, after a parade.

The plaintiff sued the driver and the hockey club.

The plaintiff's claim against the club was dismissed on consent.

The driver cross-claimed against the club for contribution and indemnity, alleging the club failed to ensure players were safely transported back to the arena.

The club moved for summary judgment to dismiss the cross-claim.

The court found that even if a duty of care existed, there was no breach of the standard of care, as the plaintiff was an adult who voluntarily chose to walk instead of riding the club's float back.

The motion was granted and the cross-claim dismissed.

The plaintiff, Yunsheng Du, sought damages from Jameson Bank after unauthorized wire transfers occurred due to his email account being hacked.

Jameson Bank moved for summary judgment, arguing it acted in accordance with the account agreement, which placed responsibility for email security on Du and contained an exclusion of liability clause for anything less than gross negligence or wilful misconduct.

Du also sought to amend his claim to add new causes of action and parties.

The court dismissed Du's proposed amendments for oppression remedy and breach of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, finding them untenable.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Jameson Bank, concluding that the contractual terms barred Du's claims for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, negligence, gross negligence, and conversion, as Du failed to secure his email account and Jameson Bank had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the instructions.

The plaintiff insurance broker sued the defendant insurer for $91,042 based on an erroneous preliminary profit share calculation provided by the defendant.

The actual accrued profit share was $2,402.

The plaintiff argued the erroneous calculation constituted a separate contract or a contract of insurance under the Insurance Act.

The court dismissed the action, finding the letter was not a stand-alone contract, did not constitute insurance, and the erroneous schedule did not bind the defendant to pay the mistakenly calculated amount.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment to enforce a $500,000 promissory note and dismiss a counterclaim.

The defendants argued the claim was statute‑barred and asserted that the loan was actually an advance against partnership profits.

The court held that the promissory note constituted a demand obligation, such that the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 2002 began to run only when demand for payment was made.

The court rejected attempts to introduce parol evidence contradicting the clear written terms of the promissory note and found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the validity of the debt.

Summary judgment was granted on the promissory note, but the counterclaim was permitted to proceed.

Following the dissolution of ex parte Mareva injunctions obtained by the plaintiffs, the defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis for the motions that resulted in the injunctions being set aside.

The court held that the defendant was the successful party on the motions and was entitled to costs.

However, substantial indemnity costs were not warranted in the circumstances.

The court fixed costs at $6,500 on a partial indemnity basis, payable upon termination of the action, with liability joint between the plaintiffs.

Any damages flowing from the granting of the injunction were left to be determined in future proceedings.

The moving party sought substantial indemnity costs after succeeding on a motion, arguing the opposing party had been warned that their statutory rescission claim lacked merit.

The responding party argued substantial indemnity was inappropriate because the issues concerning the statutory rescission remedy under s. 6(2) of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 were novel and of public importance, and because leave to amend pleadings had been granted.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs are reserved for rare and exceptional cases involving reprehensible litigation conduct and found the responding party’s conduct did not meet that threshold.

Given the novelty and public importance of the issues, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Costs of $12,000 were ordered payable by the responding parties.