Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

During a class action trial involving cosmetic surgery patients and allegations related to social media consent forms, the defendants called a witness and sought to qualify him as an expert in eDiscovery document collection and retention.

The plaintiffs objected on the basis that the witness lacked independence and impartiality, having blindly followed counsel's instructions and failed to ensure compliance with PHIPA.

The court ruled that the proposed evidence was factual in nature rather than expert opinion, as the witness was simply explaining the steps he took and the data he extracted from electronic medical records.

Since the evidence was factual and not presumptively inadmissible opinion evidence, the court did not need to address the impartiality objections, but noted that cross-examination on those issues could be relevant to the weight of the evidence.

The defendant brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

The parties had a brief relationship, after which the defendant made public allegations in the gaming community and on social media that the plaintiff had sexually assaulted her and was a sexual predator.

The court found that while the expressions related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff's defamation claim had substantial merit and there were grounds to defeat the defence of justification.

The court concluded that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the action to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendant's expressions.

The motion was dismissed, with no costs awarded.

The applicants, shareholders in Golden Ocean Investment Corporation, brought a motion challenging the validity of second and third mortgages registered against a property owned by the corporation.

They alleged the sole director executed the mortgages without authority as part of a fraud, and that the mortgagees were willfully blind to badges of fraud.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the mortgagees were bona fide purchasers for value who conducted proper legal due diligence.

The court held that taking a financial or underwriting risk does not constitute willful blindness to fraud, and the mortgagees were entitled to rely on the director's actual and ostensible authority.

The parties attended a case conference to settle the form of an order arising from a previous decision by a retired judge.

The respondents sought to include language requiring the return of shares, which the applicant opposed.

The court found that the previous judge made no determination regarding the return of shares, as the issue was not before the court during the prior hearing.

The court declined to include the respondents' proposed language and settled the order in the form submitted by the applicant.

The provincial defendants requested the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action against them under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the statement of claim lacked any factual basis for relief.

The self-represented plaintiffs sought $500 million in damages for alleged police misconduct, illegal detention, and racial profiling.

The court found the pleading exhibited hallmarks of vexatious and frivolous litigation, including sweeping allegations of rights violations and repetitive claims attempting to re-litigate matters from previous proceedings.

The court dismissed the claims against the provincial defendants without costs.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in a systemic negligence class action against a psychiatric hospital and the Province of Ontario, the successful defendants sought costs.

Waypoint claimed approximately $1.3 million and Ontario claimed approximately $815,000.

The court found the claimed amounts to be fair and reasonable given the complexity of the case and the resources expended by the plaintiffs.

Applying section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court applied an approximate 10% discount due to the public interest nature of the litigation, awarding Waypoint $1,170,000 and Ontario $735,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the reasons of a previous judge from the public record, alleging the previous order was tainted by fraud regarding an affidavit of service for an amended statement of defence.

The court found no evidence of fraud, noting the plaintiff failed to prove he did not receive the document and misinterpreted email delivery receipts.

The court further held it lacked jurisdiction under Rule 59.06 to strike another judge's reasons from the public record.

The motion was dismissed with no costs.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages resulting from alleged property interference and a blockade during a lawful strike by the defendant union.

Both parties brought summary judgment motions regarding the appropriate forum for the dispute.

The Superior Court held that it lacked jurisdiction, finding that the dispute arose from a labour dispute covered by a retroactive collective agreement.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendants' motion, ruling that the Ontario Labour Relations Board is the proper forum.

The plaintiff succeeded on a motion to refer a construction lien action to an Associate Judge for trial.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the defendants defended the action disproportionately.

The defendants argued no costs should be awarded as the motion raised a novel point of law.

The court found the issue was not novel but declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $4,975.00.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to add allegations of revenue misrepresentation related to a share purchase agreement.

The defendants opposed, arguing the amendments asserted a new cause of action after the expiry of the limitation period and were barred by a survival clause in the agreement.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the original pleading lacked the factual matrix for the new claim, the defendants had elicited the necessary material facts during discovery, meaning it was not a new cause of action.

The court also held that the survival clause did not bar the claim as it only required the claim to arise within two years, not that notice be given.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendants to serve a further and better affidavit of documents in an action for punitive damages based on an alleged breach of the duty of good faith by her insurer.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants' Schedule 'B' improperly grouped privileged documents without listing them and omitted relevant communications between the insurer and the tortfeasors.

The court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the evidentiary burden to show relevant documents may have been omitted and ordered the defendants to produce a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiffs brought medical negligence claims against numerous physicians and a hospital following the death of a patient from an acute aortic dissection.

Seven of the defendant physicians moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs failed to produce expert evidence establishing the applicable standard of care, breach, and causation.

The court granted the summary judgment motions, finding that the plaintiffs' expert reports did not establish the essential elements of negligence against the moving defendants, and that this was not a clear case where expert evidence could be dispensed with.

The court also granted the plaintiffs' counter-motion to consolidate the actions and serve a jury notice, but dismissed their request for production of original hospital records, as those records had been destroyed in accordance with hospital policy after being digitized.

The applicants (Suncor/Auger) brought a motion to compel the third party (EllisDon) to properly answer discovery undertakings related to electronic documents from its "EdgeBuilder System" database.

EllisDon had produced a portable drive containing 37,899 documents but without unique identifiers or sufficient searchability for efficient litigation.

The court found EllisDon failed to meet e-discovery requirements, emphasizing the need for unique identifiers and co-operation in discovery planning as per the Sedona Canada Principles.

The motion was granted, ordering EllisDon to produce a revised, accessible, and searchable version of the portable drive with unique identifiers and to engage in discovery planning.

No costs were awarded due to the parties' mutual failure to engage in discovery planning earlier.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an interim stay and an adjournment of a scheduled certification motion in Ontario.

The purpose was to pursue certification of a national class in a parallel class proceeding in British Columbia, citing the death of lead counsel in BC and anticipated legislative changes allowing opt-out national classes there.

The court denied the motion, finding the request was a late-stage tactical shift amounting to forum shopping, inefficient, and unfair to the defendant and class members, especially given the Ontario action's advanced stage and prior agreements on scheduling.

The applicant sought to change a final order regarding child and spousal support due to changes in children's residential arrangements.

The respondent denied one child was a child of the marriage and sought to increase spousal support.

The court found a material change in circumstances for child support, terminated the applicant's child support obligation, and ordered the respondent to pay child support for certain periods.

The court also ordered reimbursement of overpaid child support by the applicant.

The spousal support entitlement was found to be both needs-based and compensatory, with specific calculations deferred.

The plaintiff sued for unpaid invoices related to an environmental remediation project in Ontario.

The defendants moved to stay or dismiss the action, arguing lack of jurisdiction and relying on a forum selection clause (FSC) designating California courts.

The court found that while it had jurisdiction, the FSC was not a term of the contract for the majority of the unpaid invoices, its language was unclear regarding California as an exclusive forum, and there was insufficient evidence that the purchase orders were issued in California.

The defendants' motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a 63-year-old Vice-President of Finance with 17 years of service, brought a motion for summary judgment alleging constructive dismissal after his employer unilaterally imposed a 40 percent salary reduction due to financial difficulties.

The employer argued the reduction was temporary and later alleged just cause for termination.

The court found the salary reduction constituted a constructive dismissal and rejected the after-the-fact allegations of cause.

The plaintiff was awarded 23.75 months' salary in lieu of reasonable notice, reflecting a 24-month notice period reduced by a small contingency factor for mitigation.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation.

The defendants had applied for a line of credit on behalf of their company and signed a personal financial statement indicating they owned their home, which supported their personal guarantee.

After the company went bankrupt, the defendants claimed they held the home in a bare trust for their children and transferred it to their son.

The court found that oral evidence was not required to decide the motion and held that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made a false representation about their beneficial ownership of the home, which induced the bank to grant the line of credit.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the bank.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiff’s claim under s. 9 of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 and s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing the consulting agreement was an unlicensed real estate brokerage commission relating to the sale of a physiotherapy business.

The plaintiff asserted the transaction primarily involved the transfer of OHIP licences rather than the sale of a business.

The court held the characterization of the transaction involved disputed facts and mixed elements potentially inside and outside REBBA.

Because the applicability of REBBA was not clear and the evidentiary record was incomplete, a discretionary stay would be inappropriate.

The alternative argument that the claim was premature was also rejected.

The plaintiff demolition contractor registered a construction lien after abandoning the site due to the defendant developer's failure to pay a progress draw.

The dispute centered on whether the contract required crushing concrete to 3-inch minus or 3/4-inch minus, and whether the plaintiff was responsible for removing asphalt and imported materials.

The court found the defendant breached the contract by failing to pay the progress draw, the contract specified a 3-inch minus crush, and the lien was registered in time.

After accounting for payments and proven backcharges, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff $81,271.93.