Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The defendants brought a motion seeking dismissal or stay of certain claims, setting aside service on individual defendants, and striking specific pleadings.

The court struck claims made by trust plaintiffs (with leave to add trustees), unjust enrichment claims (with leave to amend), breach of trust claims (with leave to amend), and pleadings regarding pre-contractual representations (with leave to amend).

Crucially, the oppression remedy claims against all defendants were struck without leave due to a lack of jurisdiction, as neither corporate defendant was governed by the OBCA, and service on the individual defendants was set aside.

The plaintiffs were granted 30 days to amend their Statement of Claim for the claims struck with leave.

The court awarded the applicant father $20,000 in costs following a 6-day trial where he was largely successful in obtaining sole custody and primary residence.

The respondent mother, who was self-represented, was found to have been unprepared and unreasonable in her litigation conduct, though her financial circumstances were considered in determining the quantum of costs.

The court significantly reduced the father's requested costs due to proportionality concerns, duplication of legal efforts, and lack of itemized disbursements.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that a third-party insurer ranked first in priority for coverage and was obligated to defend the action.

The third-party insurer denied coverage.

The court addressed a preliminary issue regarding the proper use of discovery transcripts in motions.

Ultimately, the court found it could not determine the substantive insurance coverage dispute without further submissions on its jurisdiction to interpret a Quebec-issued policy and the applicable Quebec law.

The motion was adjourned sine die.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury action on the basis that she signed a liability waiver.

The plaintiff was injured while supervising her toddler at the defendant's gymnastics facility.

The court found that the waiver was ambiguous as it focused on the participating child and did not clearly extend to the plaintiff personally.

The ambiguity was construed against the defendant, and the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The applicant property owner sought an order prohibiting the respondent neighbours from parking on a shared right-of-way.

The respondents argued they had acquired a prescriptive right to park there and cross-applied to restrict the applicant from using the right-of-way to launch marine vehicles.

The court dismissed the application, finding the respondents had established an absolute and indefeasible right to park on the right-of-way through over 40 years of continuous use.

Furthermore, the court held the applicant's easement rights were limited to foot access to the beach and enjoined the applicant from operating motorized vehicles or building ramps on the unpaved portion of the right-of-way.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The plaintiff sustained injuries, including blurred vision, but returned to work and did not seek further treatment until his condition worsened over a year later.

The court applied the discoverability principle, noting that an expert ophthalmologist could not have determined the permanence of the eye injury within the first year.

The court found the plaintiff's claim was issued within the two-year limitation period and dismissed the defendants' motion.

The plaintiff brought an action against her nephew and his wife, claiming a proprietary constructive trust and equitable mortgage over a farm property based on an oral agreement with her late brother to reimburse her for renovation expenses.

The defendants, who inherited the property subject to the plaintiff's life estate, moved for summary judgment.

The court found that while the plaintiff had an enforceable equitable claim against her late brother, the defendants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice.

The court dismissed the claims for a constructive trust, equitable mortgage, and partition and sale, but allowed the plaintiff's claim for an accounting of farm profits based on her life estate to proceed to trial.

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from breaching non-competition, non-solicitation, and trade name use covenants following the sale of a business.

The court applied the modified injunction test for restrictive covenants, finding a strong prima facie case of breach by the defendants, directly and indirectly through an employee and his company.

The court drew an adverse inference from the defendants' failure to provide an affidavit from the key employee.

Irreparable harm was presumed and also found on evidence of lost sales and market confusion.

The balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs, as the defendants' alleged breaches were deliberate.

The injunction was granted, along with an order for production of the defendants' general ledger and customer lists.

The applicants successfully obtained an order declaring the respondents vexatious litigants.

The court then considered the applicants' request for costs.

The respondents did not file any responding costs submissions.

The court found that the respondents' underlying litigious conduct involved abuse of process and reprehensible conduct, which justified an elevated costs award.

The court awarded the applicants costs on a full indemnity basis, fixed at $10,000, noting that parties who successfully bring vexatious litigant applications perform a service for the court and other litigants.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitrator's decision regarding a construction dispute.

The arbitrator had granted partial summary judgment to the respondent and dismissed the applicant's counterclaim, finding the applicant failed to provide a 'claim made in writing' as required by the contract.

The applicant also sought leave to appeal the arbitrator's award of contractual interest.

The Superior Court of Justice granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether the correspondence constituted a 'claim made in writing', finding it raised an extricable question of law.

However, the court denied leave to appeal the interest award, concluding it involved a question of mixed fact and law regarding contractual interpretation.

The plaintiffs sought declarations of ownership by adverse possession and an easement by necessity over portions of land surrounding their waterfront property, which they claimed were necessary for access and the location of their septic system.

The defendant, who owned the surrounding lands, counterclaimed for the removal of the plaintiffs' structures.

The court found that the plaintiffs had established adverse possession over the land containing their septic system due to a mutual mistake about the property boundaries.

The court also granted the plaintiffs an easement by necessity over the access road, finding that the original subdivision plan intended for the lots to have access, and the property would otherwise be landlocked.

The defendant's counterclaim was largely dismissed, except for an order to remove a small portion of the septic field encroaching on another part of the defendant's land.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action for statutory accident benefits as statute‑barred.

The plaintiff sought non‑earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident but did not request mediation until several years after the insurer’s written refusal.

The court held that the insurer’s OCF‑9 form clearly denied the benefit and triggered the two‑year limitation period under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and the Insurance Act.

Although the plaintiff argued the denial contained a misleading explanation and that she did not understand her entitlement, the court found that once she retained counsel in early 2006 she was deemed to know of the limitation period and her rights.

The mediation request and subsequent claim were therefore well outside the limitation period.

The action and the request to amend the claim to plead negligent misstatement were dismissed.

Following a jury verdict finding a former teacher liable for sexual assault and the school board negligent, the plaintiff sought a ruling that the school board was vicariously liable for the teacher's actions.

The court applied the Salmond test as articulated in Bazley v. Curry, finding that the school board's enterprise and empowerment of the teacher materially increased the risk of harm.

The school board had sanctioned the teacher's operation of a mini-zoo in his classroom and provided him with a key, creating special opportunities for wrongdoing.

The court held the school board vicariously liable for the teacher's intentional torts.

The plaintiffs, representing the beneficiaries of Treaty 3, brought a proposed representation action against the Crown alleging breaches of the treaty's education provisions and breach of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiffs moved for authorization to proceed as a representation action under Rule 12.08.

The Crown moved under Rule 21 to dismiss the action as non-justiciable and for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the Crown's motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' motions, finding that the breach of fiduciary duty claim was untenable, the necessary parties (the 28 Indian bands) were not before the court, and the breach of treaty claim as pleaded was a non-justiciable political dispute about education policy and funding.

The applicant transferred legal title of her home to her two sons while retaining a life interest and executing an unregistered declaration of trust naming herself as the beneficial owner.

One of the sons later falsely claimed full ownership of the property to secure a vehicle lease, leading the respondents to register executions against him.

The applicant sought a declaration that she was the sole beneficial owner and that the executions did not attach to the property.

The court found that the applicant had the requisite certainty of intention to create a valid trust in 2003, and therefore her prior unregistered beneficial interest took priority over the execution creditors.

The defendant sought costs following a motion to settle the powers and duties of an interim condominium administrator appointed years earlier without clearly defined authority.

The court reviewed the extent of the defendant’s participation and the value of the submissions, noting that many proposed drafting changes were stylistic rather than substantive and that the administrator had not taken an unreasonable position.

The plaintiffs neither filed materials nor attended the motion, and the administrator had acted pursuant to the court’s direction to clarify the mandate.

The court held that no basis existed for costs beyond partial indemnity.

Costs of $4,500 were awarded to the moving party in the cause, payable by the condominium corporation depending on the outcome of the underlying action.

The plaintiffs in an Ontario securities class action moved for approval of the notice of certification.

The lead plaintiff in parallel U.S. proceedings, who was also a member of the Ontario global class, moved to participate in the motion, arguing that the notice should be delayed and should include detailed information about the U.S. proceedings.

The court granted the U.S. plaintiff standing to participate but held that the notice of certification should be issued promptly to protect class members' litigation autonomy.

The court determined that the notice should inform class members of the existence of the U.S. proceedings but should not include detailed or comparative information, as that would be confusing and unnecessary at this stage.

Following a commercial lease trial between a tenant applicant and a landlord respondent, the court was required to determine the appropriate costs award.

The tenant sought $185,421.51 in post‑trial costs arising from extensive factual analysis required due to the landlord’s inadequate maintenance records and litigation conduct.

The court held that while the tenant had beaten settlement offers and was largely successful, the circumstances did not justify substantial indemnity costs.

Considering the parties’ conduct, the scale of the litigation, and the principles in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed costs on an enhanced partial indemnity basis.

The mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a residential mortgage following the mortgagor’s default and sought payment of the outstanding balance, possession of the property, and dismissal of a counterclaim.

The borrower argued that the lender failed to honour a three‑month payment holdback allegedly promised during refinancing and asserted defences including misrepresentation, non est factum, and equitable set‑off.

The court found that the mortgage commitment permitted changes to the holdback if the borrower’s financial representations were inaccurate and concluded that insufficient funds existed to fund the holdback because of undisclosed arrears and higher debts.

The record demonstrated the borrower knew the holdback was unavailable and had multiple opportunities to cure the default but failed to do so.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring trial under Rule 20 and dismissed the counterclaim.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claim arising from a motor vehicle collision.

The plaintiff's vehicle was struck by another driver who ran a red light, causing the plaintiff's vehicle to collide with a rigid traffic signal pole on a raised median, resulting in severe brain injuries.

The plaintiffs alleged the municipality was negligent for failing to install a breakaway pole.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding liability, causation, and whether the claim was statute-barred under s. 44(8) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as the full appreciation test could not be met on the motion record.