Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The defendants brought a motion seeking an interim or final order to authorize the transfer of shares held by the Jack Witiluk Family Trust in Phase 2 Ventures Inc. to Jeffrey Witiluk and Ryan Witiluk.

The plaintiffs opposed, citing prejudice, oppression, and technical issues related to board approval and director appointment.

The court found the plaintiffs' opposition lacked merit, emphasizing the long-standing nature of the litigation and the pragmatic business sense of the proposed transfer.

Exercising its discretion under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the court authorized the share transfer, dismissing the plaintiffs' technical objections.

Costs were awarded against the plaintiff, Gerald Witiluk, personally.

The plaintiff slipped and fell in a grocery store parking lot on January 6, 2015.

She commenced an action against the store on January 5, 2017, and a separate action against the snow removal contractor on October 13, 2017.

The contractor brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to rebut the statutory presumption that she discovered her claim on the date of the fall, and alternatively, that a reasonable person would have discovered the claim within six months.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend her Statement of Claim to substitute Saint Elizabeth Health Care for the originally named defendant, Toronto Community Care Access Centre, after the expiry of the limitation period.

The plaintiff relied on the doctrine of misnomer, arguing that the proposed defendant was always the intended target and had received notice letters within the limitation period.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed defendant would have known it was the intended target upon reading the claim, and that there was no actual prejudice to justify refusing the amendment.

The plaintiff, in her personal capacity and as an estate trustee, brought an action against her brothers and several family corporations, alleging oppression, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty regarding a 2002 estate freeze and the distribution of mortgage proceeds.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court found that the estate freeze was validly implemented and that the distribution of the mortgage proceeds was a reasonable business decision.

The court dismissed the majority of the plaintiff's claims, finding no evidence of oppression, but ordered the corporate defendants to hold annual shareholder meetings, appoint an auditor, and retain independent counsel.

The minor plaintiff was seriously injured after hanging onto the outside of a moving escalator handrail at the defendants' shopping mall and falling from a height.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendants owed no duty of care to protect the plaintiff from such an obvious and self-evidently dangerous activity.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff willingly assumed the risk under s. 4(1) of the Occupiers' Liability Act, and that the defendants' security measures were reasonable.

During a trial, the defendants sought an order under Rule 53.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to tender the evidence of a software company representative by affidavit.

The plaintiffs objected, arguing the evidence was contentious and required cross-examination.

The court dismissed the request, finding the defendants failed to establish the evidence was uncontentious and noting the witness was available to testify virtually.

The plaintiffs sought to settle an order approving a Pierringer Agreement with the settling defendants.

A non-party insurer, who was a defendant in a separate action brought by one of the plaintiffs, objected to the wording of the order, arguing it would affect its rights.

The court held that the non-party insurer had no standing to object to the order in this action and signed the draft order as agreed to by the parties.

The court issued a protective order on consent of the parties in a case involving allegations of appropriation and misuse of confidential technical and business information.

The order governs the handling and protection of confidential documents and information exchanged during discovery, requiring advance notice before filing such materials in court, but explicitly stating it does not constitute a sealing order or publication ban.

The court also provided specific case management directions for the litigation.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order granting the defendants' motion for security for costs in an action for negligent investigation, wrongful arrest, and malicious prosecution.

The plaintiff argued the Master erred in granting leave to bring the motion after the action was set down for trial and in ordering security for costs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Master's decision to grant leave or in the conclusion that the defendants had a good defence on the merits and the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets to satisfy a costs award.

The plaintiff in a defamation action brought a motion under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike various paragraphs of the defendant's fresh as amended statement of defence.

The plaintiff argued the paragraphs did not comply with the rules of pleading and were irrelevant, repetitive, and improper.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the impugned paragraphs generally complied with the rules of pleading and that a pleading must be read generously and not subjected to a standard of perfection.

This decision provides reasons for citing Nadire Atas for four incidents of contempt of court and outlines the subsequent sentencing.

The contempt findings relate to repeated improper communications with the court, failure to attend a mandatory case management conference, disrespectful conduct towards the court, and failure to pay court fees or properly obtain a fee waiver.

The court emphasizes the importance of obeying court orders, the finality of judicial decisions, and the proper procedure for raising issues like bias or functus officio.

Sentences included a one-year suspended sentence for improper communications, an absolute discharge for the fee waiver issue (after purging contempt), a six-month conditional sentence for insolence, and a five-day jail sentence for failing to attend court.

Lang Michener LLP was entirely successful on a motion and counterclaim for professional fees against Gregory P. King.

The counterclaim involved serious allegations against senior counsel and sought indemnity for an Italian judgment, making it a substantial and complex piece of litigation.

The court fixed Lang Michener's costs of the motion and counterclaim at $45,000, applying the proportionality principle and considering the seriousness and complexity of the issues.

The Third Parties, Jimmy K. Sun and Sun Partners, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the defendants' Third Party Claim for contribution and indemnity.

The motion was based on the expiry of the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that Section 18 of the Act establishes an absolute two-year limitation period from the date the first alleged wrongdoer was served with the claim, and that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not apply to extend this period.

The Third Party Claim was commenced more than two years after the defendants were served with the Statement of Claim.

The respondent brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the applicant's application as frivolous and vexatious.

The court, finding the application potentially frivolous, ordered the registrar to issue a notice to the applicant to make submissions against dismissal, stayed the application pursuant to s.106 of the Courts of Justice Act, and restricted further filings pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The defendant, Wikwemikong Nursing Home, brought a motion to transfer the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action from Toronto to Gore Bay, Manitoulin Island.

The court considered the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that the substantial part of the events, the subject matter, and local community interest strongly favoured Gore Bay.

Despite the plaintiff's personal circumstances and damages being sustained in Toronto, the overall convenience of witnesses and the operational requirements of the defendant's long-term care home also supported the transfer.

The court granted the defendant's motion, concluding that the interests of justice required the transfer to Gore Bay.

The defendant mortgagor moved to set aside a default judgment and writ of possession obtained by the plaintiff mortgagee, and to stay a prior order declining to set aside a notice to vacate.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no plausible explanation for the defendant's default, no arguable defence on the merits regarding priority of encumbrances or Planning Act compliance, and that setting aside the judgment would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiff and undermine the administration of justice.

A farmer sued his insurance broker alleging negligence for failing to obtain insurance coverage for collapse of a tarp barn due to snow load.

Both parties brought competing motions for summary judgment.

The court held that the broker breached its duty of care by failing to adequately advise the client about coverage and foreseeable risks.

However, the plaintiff failed to prove causation because the evidence did not establish that the collapse was more likely than not caused by snow load rather than other possible causes such as wind, design flaws, or construction defects.

As a result, the plaintiff could not establish that the broker’s breach caused the loss.

On a motion arising within long-running debt and fraudulent conveyance litigation, the moving party sought to cross-examine responding parties on affidavit materials that had already been the subject of earlier cross-examinations on a prior summary judgment motion.

The court held that, although it had serious doubts about the utility of renewed questioning and considered the issues largely unchanged, the moving party should not be barred outright from a focused further cross-examination given the different framing of the new motion.

The court therefore allowed limited cross-examinations of two responding parties, capped at three hours each, and restricted the scope for further disputes over undertakings.

Costs were left to the motions judge hearing the summary judgment motion.

In a defamation action arising from letters published in a newspaper criticizing veterinary services, the defendants brought a motion seeking production of additional documents before examinations for discovery.

The court considered the relevance and proportionality of the requested records under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

It ordered production of appointment records for the key date, client files relating to 33 clients allegedly lost due to the publication, and financial and client records underlying the plaintiffs’ damages expert report.

Requests for predecessor financial records and a mailing list were denied as premature or irrelevant.

The court rejected claims of confidentiality over client records due to lack of evidence establishing privilege and ordered the plaintiffs to serve a fresh affidavit of documents and proceed under a litigation timetable.

The plaintiff brought a negligence action after suffering a fractured shoulder in a fall at a restaurant step leading into a private party room.

The court considered the occupier’s duty of care under s. 3(1) of the Occupier’s Liability Act and whether the restaurant took reasonable steps to ensure patrons were safe.

Evidence showed staff failed to follow established protocols for escorting guests and warning them about the step, and the step lacked illumination or other safety features.

The court found the warning sign inadequate and concluded the occupier breached its statutory duty.

However, the plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for failing to watch where she was walking as she approached the step.

General damages of $50,000 and limited special damages were awarded, reduced by contributory negligence.