Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The defendant in a motor vehicle accident action brought a motion to amend her statement of defence and to compel the plaintiff to disclose the settlement particulars of a companion commercial host action.

The plaintiff opposed the disclosure of the settlement details and the related amendment to the statement of defence.

The court dismissed the request for settlement particulars, finding them protected by settlement privilege and irrelevant to the assessment of damages in the current action.

The court also struck the proposed amendment requiring the plaintiff to account for the use of the settlement funds, as it was an improper attempt to obtain privileged information.

A hearing regarding a capacity assessment was scheduled during a trial.

Plaintiff's counsel failed to appear.

The court adjourned the hearing to a later date and noted that the parties had reached an agreement on the identity and funding of a capacity assessor if one is ordered.

The defendant brought a motion in writing to discharge a section 71 notice on its property and release a $50,000 deposit following an aborted real estate transaction.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing it still had an agreement to purchase the unique property and that the defendant caused the financing failure by withholding financial information.

The court declined to decide the matter in writing due to untested conflicting assertions of fact and credibility issues, adjourning the motion to be heard in open court.

The respondent brought a motion to determine whether the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement regarding the assessment of accounts.

The matter came before the court but could not be accommodated for a full-day hearing.

The court adjourned the motion to a later date, noting that all materials had been served and uploaded.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision that set aside a Registrar's administrative dismissal of the respondent's action for delay.

The respondent law firm had commenced an action alleging wrongful solicitation of clients by the appellants.

The action was dismissed five years later under Rule 48.14.

The Superior Court found that the Master made several legal and palpable and overriding errors in applying the Reid factors, including equating delay with the litigation not advancing at all, lowering the bar for what it means to prosecute an action, and improperly shifting the burden of proving prejudice to the appellants.

The appeal was allowed, the Master's decision was set aside, and the Registrar's dismissal was upheld.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2) to set aside previous dismissal orders on the basis of fraud.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment, and the defendants collectively applied to have the plaintiffs declared vexatious litigants under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding no evidence of fraud.

The court granted the municipality's summary judgment motion, finding the claims barred by issue estoppel.

Finally, the court declared the plaintiffs vexatious litigants, noting their 15-year history of abusive litigation, frivolous appeals, and failure to pay over $218,000 in costs awards.

The plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action in 2008 alleging that a prescription medication manufactured by the defendant caused cardiovascular harm.

After twelve years with no progress toward certification, the defendant moved to dismiss for delay.

The plaintiffs decided not to proceed and brought a consent motion to discontinue the action without costs.

The court approved the discontinuance under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding the action had no potential to be certified and the proposed notice to putative class members was appropriate.

The applicant, a 30% shareholder, brought an application for oppression against the respondent corporation and its sole director.

The director failed to produce audited financial statements, breached multiple court orders, and misappropriated millions in corporate funds for personal use.

The court found the director's conduct to be oppressive and imposed personal liability.

A receiver was appointed, and the court set a rough buyout value for the applicant's shares at $3,993,750, giving the parties options to accept the valuation or have the receiver conduct a formal valuation.

The defendants brought a motion to declare the plaintiff's construction lien expired and to vacate it, arguing it was not preserved in time and the statement of claim was not served within the 90-day statutory period.

The court found the lien was preserved in time based on the actual date of contract termination.

Regarding the late service of the statement of claim, the plaintiff's counsel admitted to a six-month delay, citing oversight and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court adjourned the motion to allow the plaintiff to bring a cross-motion for an extension of time for service, requiring more evidence on the pandemic's effect on the delay.

The plaintiff brought an action for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation against the police defendants after criminal charges against him were stayed by the Crown.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred because it was commenced more than two years after the stay was entered.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period did not begin until the one-year period for the Crown to recommence the stayed charges had expired.

The court held that a Crown stay constitutes a favourable termination of proceedings and the limitation clock begins to run on the day the stay is entered.

The action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The Attorney General of Ontario previously obtained an order approving the settlement of an application under the Civil Remedies Act.

Following the release of the endorsement, counsel for the Attorney General wrote to the court to clarify a point in their factum regarding the timing of a cited Divisional Court decision relative to the enactment of section 18.1 of the Act.

The court issued a supplementary endorsement acknowledging the clarification, noting that while it might have affected the analysis, it did not change the decision to grant the relief sought.

The applicants sought declaratory relief to prevent the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) from terminating their Feed-in Tariff (FIT) Contracts for failing to achieve commercial operation by the required milestone date.

The applicants argued that estoppel by convention applied based on a shared assumption that the IESO would grant an 18-month extension.

The court dismissed the application, finding no manifest representation by the IESO to establish a shared assumption, and noted that the entire agreement and waiver clauses in the contracts precluded reliance on past practices.

A case management conference was held for five related actions arising from a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The court noted partial compliance with a previous timetable and ordered further deadlines for answering undertakings, arranging defence medical examinations, and serving expert reports.

The court also directed that the matters be tried together and admonished counsel for sending representatives without knowledge or authority to the case conference.

This case management endorsement addresses the status of an interlocutory injunction motion in defamation proceedings.

The court granted an extension to the plaintiffs for providing information regarding the scheduling of their interlocutory injunction motion, accepting counsel's explanation for the delay.

The self-represented defendant's request to summarily set aside the interim injunction was dismissed, as the court noted that extensive evidence had been filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant had not yet served responding materials.

The court also reiterated that a previous s.140 vexatious litigant order against the defendant remains in effect and is not open to debate in this court pending appeal.

Directions were provided for the defendant to propose a timetable for responding to the injunction motion.

The defendants brought a motion to amend their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim and to add four sub-trades as parties in a residential construction dispute.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The Master denied the addition of the sub-trades, finding it would create an unwieldy and cumbersome litigation file and that there was no privity of contract between the defendants and the sub-trades.

The Master allowed various housekeeping amendments to the pleadings but denied certain other substantive amendments.

Costs of $4,500 were awarded to the plaintiff.

A construction crane collapsed onto a partially completed retirement residence, causing significant property damage covered by the owner’s “all risks” construction insurance policy.

The owner’s insurer commenced a subrogated action and co‑defendants sought contribution and indemnity from the contractor and crane supplier.

The moving parties sought summary judgment dismissing the crossclaims, arguing that the construction contract contained an insurance covenant allocating the risk of property loss to the owner’s project insurance and benefiting contractors and subcontractors.

The court held that the covenant barred claims against those parties and prevented contribution claims under the Negligence Act.

The court further held that the insurer’s waiver of subrogation and the doctrine recognizing insurable interests of trades on construction projects also barred the claims.

All crossclaims against the moving parties were dismissed.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' 2003 franchise dispute action for delay under Rule 24.01(1)(e), and the plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to restore the action to the trial list.

The court found a period of inordinate and unexplained delay, largely attributable to the plaintiffs' former counsel's neglect.

However, the court also found that the delay caused actual prejudice to the defendant, as key executives involved in the franchise negotiations had left the company during the delay period, creating a substantial risk that a fair trial was no longer possible.

The defendant's motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The counter-applicant brought a motion to dismiss the counter-application against certain respondents, join Ontario as a respondent, consolidate the application and counter-application, and convert the consolidated applications to an action.

The first three requests were granted on consent.

The request to convert the application to an action was contested.

The court dismissed this request, finding that the facts regarding the dedication of the disputed road as a public highway were clear and uncomplicated, and credibility was not in issue.

Following a motion hearing concerning a significant advance payment request in complex estate-related litigation, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying the factors in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered the importance and novelty of the issues and the reasonable expectations of experienced litigants.

The plaintiff was successful and entitled to substantial costs for the motion.

The court also addressed the entitlement of the estate trustee during litigation to costs payable from the estate under a prior order.

Following approval of an infant settlement, the plaintiffs sought clarification of an earlier endorsement regarding alternative relief requested in their motion.

The moving parties had asked, in the alternative to sealing the record, that all references to the settlement amount be redacted from the motion materials and judgment pursuant to s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court confirmed that it had been aware of the request but declined to grant it.

The judge held that the parties’ agreement to keep settlement terms confidential was not sufficient to justify either sealing the file or redacting the settlement figures.

The evidentiary record did not support restricting public access to the court record.