Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The plaintiff Beechhill Capital Corp. brought a motion for summary judgment on a promissory note in the amount of $1,372,230.00 issued by the defendants.

The defendants acknowledged the debt but raised defences including lack of consideration, statute of limitations, oppression claims, and misrepresentation regarding the value of pledged HEXO shares.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding that the defences lacked merit.

The court determined that valuable consideration existed through antecedent debt and forbearance, the limitation period had not expired as the note was renewed, oppression was not a valid defence to a promissory note, and the alleged misrepresentations could not have induced the defendants to sign the note since the debt predated the note and the defendants had knowledge of the share dispositions.

The applicant, Sharon Hartin, objected to the accounts of the respondent, Mary McInnis, in her capacities as attorney for property and estate trustee of Anna Evelyn Hartin's estate.

The applicant alleged undue influence, improper transfers, failure to keep proper records, and breach of court orders.

The court found a presumption of undue influence arose due to the deceased's dependency on the respondent, which the respondent largely failed to rebut.

The court also found the respondent acted as attorney for property and failed to keep adequate records.

The court ordered the respondent to reimburse the estate $127,167.70, revoked her Certificate of Appointment as Estate Trustee, and denied her compensation.

The applicant, Lidija Tomas, brought an application against her brother, Nenad Tomas, concerning the estate of their deceased mother, Marija Tomas.

The applicant sought damages for the respondent's alleged breaches of fiduciary duty while acting as attorney under a Power of Attorney for Property (POAP) and as an estate trustee, including mismanagement, non-payment of debts, and misappropriation of funds.

The respondent filed a counter-application for an alleged loan and return of personal property.

The court found the respondent breached his duties, mismanaged assets for his personal benefit, and lacked credibility.

The respondent was removed as estate trustee, ordered to pay significant damages to the estate and the applicant, and was disinherited from certain residual assets.

The applicant was appointed sole estate trustee and awarded costs and compensation.

The court issued a costs endorsement for two consolidated applications concerning beneficial ownership of a property.

The initial applications sought declarations of 100% ownership by each party.

The court found a 75.2% interest for Gandhi and 24.8% for Fajebe, ordering the property sold.

Neither party's offers to settle triggered Rule 49.10 costs consequences as they contained non-ordered terms or were not easily comparable to the judgment.

Considering Rule 57.01 factors, including delays and abandoned claims, the court found both parties largely failed to meet their onuses.

Despite Gandhi being "less unsuccessful," the court ordered no costs, finding divided success and no operative offer to settle.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking orders for partition and sale of the matrimonial home, compliance with previous disclosure and payment orders, enforcement of parenting time, and a police-assist order.

The applicant mother opposed the sale and sought an adjournment.

The court dismissed the adjournment request, finding the matrimonial home's financing unsustainable due to the applicant's non-compliance with payment orders.

The court ordered the sale of the home, directed the applicant to account for and reverse unauthorized renovations, and issued compliance orders for financial disclosure and parenting time, including make-up time for the respondent.

The respondent was deemed entirely successful and presumptively entitled to costs.

This action arose from a failed residential real estate transaction where the plaintiffs sought specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The defendants argued the contract was invalid or that damages were the appropriate remedy.

The court found a valid and binding agreement, timely waiver of conditions by the plaintiffs, and that the defendants had repudiated the contract.

Specific performance was granted, considering the property's uniqueness, the defendants' questionable ability to pay damages, and their bad faith conduct throughout the transaction.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21 to strike portions of the plaintiff's Amended Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim (AFAC), particularly a claim for negligent investigation against the employer.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion under Rule 26 to further amend the AFAC, including adding claims for intentional infliction of mental distress and defamation with malice.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the negligent investigation claim, affirming that the tort does not extend to employers conducting internal investigations, even with recent OHSA amendments.

The court partially granted the plaintiff's cross-motion, allowing amendments for intentional infliction of mental distress and certain defamation particulars, and for rephrasing reputation paragraphs, but denied other proposed amendments due to late filing and procedural fairness concerns.

The applicant mother, wholly successful in the underlying trial concerning parenting and child support, sought full costs.

The respondent father, who was self-represented and made no cost submissions, had made significantly less favorable offers to settle than what was ultimately ordered.

The court considered the four purposes of modern costs rules, the mother's success, her generous offers to settle, and the father's conduct and limited financial means.

Despite the father's low imputed income, his unreasonable conduct and the mother's more advantageous offers justified a significant cost award.

The court awarded the mother $30,000 in all-inclusive costs, with $10,000 enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as child support.

In a civil forfeiture proceeding, the interested party brought a motion to exclude seized currency from evidence, arguing that the search warrants for his residence and vehicle violated his section 8 Charter rights.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO) and found that the police had established a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be found, based on the party's prior drug trafficking convictions, surveillance of hand-to-hand transactions, and the practice of separating drugs from cash.

The motion to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the Attorney General.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend her Statement of Claim to include a new cause of action under a second life insurance policy, beyond the presumptive two-year limitation period.

The court found that the plaintiff met the discoverability criteria under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the relevant underwriting documents were not disclosed until the defendants served their Affidavit of Documents.

However, the court refused the amendment, concluding that the proposed new cause of action was legally untenable because the insured had a clear duty to disclose a material change in health (a seizure) before the delivery of the policy, and the alleged ambiguity in the insurance documents was without merit.

Following a trial where the plaintiff contractor failed to prove entitlement to a construction lien and the defendant owners obtained a nominal judgment of $738.20 on their set-off defence, both parties sought costs.

The court noted divided success, as the plaintiff successfully established the owners breached the contract, but the owners successfully defeated the lien claim.

Given the divided success and the expiration of the owners' settlement offers prior to trial, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action sought to adduce opinion evidence from two treating cardiac surgeons as participant experts.

The defendants brought a motion to exclude portions of the proposed evidence of one of the surgeons, arguing it went beyond the scope permitted by Westerhof and that the surgeon lacked impartiality and specific expertise.

The court allowed the motion in part, excluding opinions on the standard of care prior to the surgeon's involvement and on whether earlier surgery would have changed the outcome, as these were not based on his observation or participation.

However, the court permitted the surgeon to opine on matters arising directly from his involvement, holding that concerns about his partiality should go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action and to grant judgment on his counterclaim for unpaid services.

The plaintiff elected not to file any responding evidence, relying solely on its pleadings.

The court drew an adverse inference against the plaintiff and dismissed its action, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

However, the court dismissed the defendant's motion for judgment on the counterclaim, finding the evidentiary record inadequate to determine liability and damages, and directed the counterclaim to proceed to a simplified procedure trial.

The parties sought costs following three segments of the discovery process, including motions for undertakings and refusals.

The plaintiff claimed misappropriation by a former employee who started a competing business, while the defendant counterclaimed for wrongful dismissal.

The Master awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff for its successful refusals motion, partial indemnity costs to the defendants for their refusals motion (deferring expert costs to the trial judge), and ordered costs in the cause for both parties regarding a third motion involving aborted discoveries.

The defendant moved to remove the plaintiff’s law firm on the basis of a conflict of interest, arguing the firm previously acted as its corporate counsel and therefore owed duties of loyalty.

The court found the defendant was technically a current client at the time the action was commenced, but the prior retainers were limited, sporadic, and of minor scope.

Applying the bright line rule from Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court held it was unreasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to expect the firm would not act against it in unrelated matters.

There was no risk of misuse of confidential information and no substantial risk that the representation would be materially affected.

The court concluded disqualification was not necessary to maintain the integrity of the administration of justice.

The plaintiff tripped and fell on a municipal sidewalk, sustaining a rotator cuff tear.

She brought an action against the municipality for failing to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonable state of repair.

The court found that a height differential of 3/4 to 1.25 inches existed between sidewalk slabs, constituting a state of non-repair that the municipality failed to identify or repair.

However, the court also found the plaintiff 50% contributorily negligent for failing to pay attention to where she was walking.

Damages were assessed and reduced by 50%, resulting in an award of $107,765 to the plaintiff and $5,000 to her husband under the Family Law Act.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking relief to prevent an administrative dismissal and to permit substituted service of court documents.

The court considered evidence that the responding party had been difficult to serve and that traditional service methods were ineffective.

The court found that staying any administrative dismissal was necessary in the interests of justice.

The court further concluded that service by posting the documents to the responding party’s Facebook page was likely to bring the materials to their attention.

The motion was granted and the requested orders were directed to issue.

Commercial tenant sought a declaration that its lease remained in force after the landlord purported to terminate the lease for alleged non‑rental defaults involving use of areas outside the leased premises.

The court held that the landlord’s termination was invalid because the statutory notice under s.19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act was deficient, failed to require monetary compensation for the alleged breaches, and the landlord had waived reliance on the defaults by accepting rent after issuing the notice.

The alleged conduct was also largely condoned for years and was not sufficiently serious to justify forfeiture.

The lease therefore remained in effect and the tenant was entitled to damages for the wrongful lockout.

The quantification of damages was deferred to a later proceeding.

Addendum to a prior decision correcting the wording of an order concerning the removal of counsel for a statutory third party insurer.

The original judgment was amended to clarify that the motion sought removal of the law firm representing the statutory third party, rather than the individual defendant driver.

The court ordered that the law firm be removed as solicitors of record for the statutory third party insurer.

The litigation guardian was permitted to make written submissions on costs, with the insurer given time to respond.

Following the dismissal of a motion to certify a proposed class action concerning alleged defects in digital cameras, the court addressed the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought $764,944.37 on a partial indemnity basis, arguing the plaintiffs were wholly unsuccessful and had advanced an overbroad claim lacking evidentiary foundation.

The court held that the case did not raise a novel legal issue or matter of public interest that would justify relaxing the ordinary costs regime under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

However, the court found the amount claimed excessive given the scale and complexity of the certification motion and the resources deployed by the defendants.

Balancing proportionality, fairness, and access to justice considerations, the court awarded the defendants $200,000 in costs.