Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The plaintiff, a generic drug manufacturer, brought an action for damages against the defendants under s. 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations for delayed market entry of its generic drug.

The plaintiff argued it was entitled to damages because the defendants' prohibition proceeding was dismissed for mootness after the underlying patent was invalidated in a separate proceeding.

The court dismissed the claim, finding that the plaintiff's allegations in the prohibition proceeding had failed on the merits, and s. 8 does not provide redress where the innovator prevailed on the merits but the patent was later invalidated by a third party.

The court also found that, even if liability existed, the plaintiff would not have entered the market any sooner in the hypothetical world due to its risk-averse nature.

The defendant insurer moved under Rule 30.10 for production of records from various non-parties, including the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), relating to an organized crime investigation known as Project Hobart.

The insurer sought these records to defend an action for coverage following an arson at the plaintiff's business premises.

The court dismissed the motion for the OPP records, finding that the insurer failed to establish that the criminal investigation file, which did not involve arson charges, was relevant to a material issue in the civil action.

An alternative request to stay the action was also dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding parties.

At a case conference, the plaintiffs requested copies of all media documents listed in Schedule A of the defendants' Affidavit of Documents.

The defendants argued that the cost of reviewing, redacting, and copying the files would be prohibitive and offered inspection instead.

The court held that the defendants complied with Rule 30.04 by offering inspection and ordered that the plaintiffs' counsel may inspect the documents at the Crown's offices.

The court also renewed an order prohibiting the recording and posting of discovery proceedings on social media.

The applicant mother brought a motion to stay or consolidate a civil action commenced by her father-in-law with her family law application.

The father-in-law had advanced $1 million for the purchase of the matrimonial home, which the mother claimed was a gift and the father-in-law claimed was a loan.

The father-in-law commenced a civil action for possession of the home, while the mother sought exclusive possession and equalization in the family proceeding.

The court found that the central issue of whether the advance was a gift or a loan was common to both proceedings and ordered that the civil action be heard together with the family application to avoid inconsistent findings and save time and expense.

Following a successful summary judgment motion setting aside transfers at undervalue, the Trustee in Bankruptcy sought substantial indemnity costs, including pre-litigation costs, and a vesting order.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, declining to award pre-litigation costs or substantial indemnity costs as the defendants' conduct was not reprehensible.

The court also approved the inclusion of a vesting order in the judgment, finding it to be a natural corollary to the order setting aside the transfers under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The plaintiff grandmother sued her defendant grandson to recover funds she allegedly loaned him to pay estate debts and repair a home.

She brought a motion to amend her Statement of Claim to add allegations of undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, and punitive damages, as well as to plead evidence obtained during discovery.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it plain and obvious that the proposed amendments could not succeed because undue influence is not a stand-alone cause of action, the material facts for breach of fiduciary duty were not pleaded, and there was no independent actionable wrong to support punitive damages.

The respondents, the declarant and project manager of a condominium, brought a motion to add the general contractor, Man-Shield, as a party to an application brought by the condominium corporation seeking as-built drawings under the Condominium Act, 1998.

Alternatively, the respondents sought to consolidate the application with a related construction deficiency action.

The court dismissed the motion to add the general contractor, finding no cause of action against it under the Act, which imposes obligations solely on the declarant.

The court also dismissed the motion to consolidate, finding the issues distinct and noting that consolidation would unnecessarily complicate the proceedings and prejudice other parties.

The court considered the defendant's request for costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for an interim injunction.

The plaintiff, acting in person, resisted costs, claiming to be a "pauper." The court applied the principles of indemnity and access to justice, noting that the plaintiff's motion was unmeritorious and not brought in the public interest, especially given the imminent passage of the Cannabis Act.

The court found the defendant's requested costs of $3,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be fair and reasonable, despite the defendant's actual costs being higher.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $3,000 in costs.

The appellant appealed a Master's order requiring it to pay security for costs.

The Master had found that the appellant, a foreign corporation, had insufficient assets in Ontario and failed to demonstrate impecuniosity on a balance of probabilities due to inadequate financial disclosure and credibility issues with its principal.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review and found no basis to interfere with the Master's assessment of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a former Olympic alpine skier, brought a motion for summary judgment against her former tax lawyer and his firm for professional negligence.

The defendants had advised the plaintiff to participate in an aggressive offshore tax plan to wind up her amateur athletic trust, which the Canada Revenue Agency later deemed a sham.

The Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment on liability, finding that the defendants breached their duty of care by failing to warn the plaintiff of the significant legal risks associated with the plan.

The court held that expert evidence was not required to establish the standard of care because the duty to warn was clear, and directed that the issue of damages proceed to trial.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against Melissa Gibson-Heath for theft from an elderly resident and for summary judgment against DC Jain & Sons Inc. on the basis of vicarious liability.

The court granted default judgment against Gibson-Heath for the unrecovered stolen amount of $155,468.46 plus pre-judgment interest and costs, declaring the judgment to survive bankruptcy due to fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

However, punitive damages against Gibson-Heath were denied given her prior criminal sentence.

The motion for summary judgment against DC Jain & Sons Inc. was dismissed, as the evidentiary record was deemed insufficient to determine vicarious liability, particularly regarding the arrangement of care services and the employer's creation of risk.

A case conference was ordered to further develop the record.

The defendants abandoned their motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim on the day of the hearing.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity or partial indemnity costs for preparing for this motion.

The court considered various factors under the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the complexity of the issues, the importance of the issues, and the parties' conduct.

The court found the hourly rates reasonable but the time docketed excessive given the nature of the motion and the plaintiffs' prior experience with similar motions.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, finding that the defendants' conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued the plaintiffs failed to comply with policy conditions requiring timely notice and corroboration of an unidentified motorist.

The plaintiff driver claimed her memory of an oncoming vehicle causing the crash returned gradually after suffering severe injuries and hallucinations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's credibility, recovered memory, and potential entitlement to relief from forfeiture under section 129 of the Insurance Act were genuine issues requiring a full trial.

The plaintiff in a slip and fall action moved to strike the jury following the defendants' opening statements, arguing that defence counsel made improper arguments, impugned plaintiff's counsel, and injected personal opinions.

The court reviewed the impugned statements and found that while some comments crossed the line into argument and unfairly bolstered credibility, the transgressions were minimally prejudicial.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the jury, concluding that a short curative instruction would adequately address the issues without compromising the plaintiff's right to a fair trial.

The plaintiff real estate broker brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant property owner for an unpaid leasing commission.

The owner cross-moved to dismiss the claim, arguing its property manager lacked actual authority to enter into the listing agreement on its behalf.

The court found that the property management agreement granted the manager actual authority to arrange for advertising and promotion, which included engaging a broker.

The court further held that the plaintiff was entitled to the commission because a valid offer to lease was received during the listing period and the owner's agent breached the agreement by failing to refer the prospective tenant to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted and the defendant's cross-motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an order that the parties jointly pay for the transcripts of a first trial, and that those transcripts be used at a new trial ordered by the Court of Appeal due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and reversed the evidentiary onus.

The court ordered the parties to jointly order and equally pay for the transcripts, but dismissed the balance of the motion, finding it premature to determine how the evidence should be tendered before the trial judge has reviewed the transcripts.

Following a divided outcome on an application regarding taxi licensing by-laws, the intervenor, Taxiworkers Association of Ontario, sought costs against the applicant.

The court denied costs for the intervention and injunction motions because the intervenor was not a necessary party and participated on its own initiative.

However, the court awarded the intervenor $2,500 in costs for the main application, recognizing that its evidence was critical to the court's determination of the notice issue.

The defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to strike a claim arising from litigation related to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations.

The court adjourned the motion pending the outcome of a related appeal before the Court of Appeal involving the same underlying facts and legal issues.

The judge held that the appellate decision would likely have a significant impact on the issues in the motion, particularly regarding the availability of ancillary remedies in PM(NOC) Regulations litigation.

The adjournment was justified on grounds of judicial economy, efficiency, and the avoidance of potentially duplicative proceedings.

The court concluded that the short delay would not cause real prejudice and any financial impact could be compensated by interest.

A hospital patient sued a hospital and its security guards for battery after being restrained in the emergency department while a physician issued a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act.

The patient argued the restraint was unlawful and caused a rotator cuff injury.

The court found the restraint caused the injury but concluded the conduct was legally justified under s. 15 of the Mental Health Act because the physician had reasonable grounds to believe the patient’s infection impaired her judgment and placed her at risk of serious bodily harm.

The force used by security was minimal and proportionate to preventing the patient from leaving before urgent surgery.

Because the restraint was authorized by statute, the elements of battery were not established.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the defendant for $150,000 USD based on a promissory note, and sought dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant argued the funds were an investment in a joint venture, not a simple loan, and counterclaimed for damages related to the joint venture.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial, including conflicting evidence about the nature of the agreement, the purpose of the funds, and the involvement of other parties.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.