Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

Following a jury trial in a motor vehicle accident case, the non-settling defendant was found 100% liable for the plaintiff's damages.

The non-settling defendant sought to deduct the $150,000 settlement paid by the settling defendant under a Pierringer agreement from the jury's damages award to prevent double recovery.

The court held that while the settlement amount must be deducted to prevent overcompensation, the plaintiff is entitled to first deduct her full indemnity costs of pursuing the settling defendant from the settlement funds, ensuring she is not undercompensated.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment in London regarding credit card debt.

On his own initiative, the judge directed a case management conference to consider whether the proceeding should be transferred, noting the matter had no rational connection to Middlesex County.

Applying the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the plaintiff engaged in improper forum shopping by commencing the action in London solely because its counsel was located there.

The court exercised its new jurisdiction under Rule 13.1.02(4) to transfer the proceeding to Brampton, where the underlying contract was formed and the defendant formerly resided.

The defendants, Shukri Ali Ali and The Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay pursuant to Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, Yassin Aden Osman, did not oppose the motion and failed to appear.

The court found that the plaintiff's default was intentional and contumelious, demonstrating disrespect for the court process through serial violations of court orders and non-attendance.

Additionally, the delay was found to be inordinate and inexcusable, giving rise to a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible, particularly due to the loss of witnesses and inability to inspect the vehicle.

The court granted the motion, dismissing the action against all defendants and awarding costs to the moving defendants.

Following the successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff's claim, the defendant Town of Hanover sought costs of $43,447.34.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the costs award.

The court applied Rule 57.01, noting the defendant's unaccepted offer to settle for a dismissal without costs, the complexity of the motion, and the proportionality of the costs claimed.

The court awarded the defendant its full costs claimed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendants, the City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority, to answer questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The underlying action involves a minor plaintiff who sustained catastrophic injuries after falling from a trail at Albion Falls Park.

The court reviewed the refused questions, applying the test for relevance under Rule 31.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ordered the defendants to answer several questions related to prior safety concerns, incident reports, and the identities of individuals with knowledge, while upholding refusals for irrelevant questions.

Success was divided, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for certification of a proposed class action, the successful defendant sought costs.

The plaintiff argued that costs should not be awarded because the litigation was in the public interest.

The court rejected this argument, finding no reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $182,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, noting that online legal research charges are not a proper disbursement.

The defendant brought a motion for leave under Rule 48.04 to seek leave to amend its statement of defence under Rule 26.02(c), as the action had already been set down for trial.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the delay in seeking the amendments was inordinate and presumed prejudice.

The court held that the mandatory language of Rule 26.01 governed, requiring amendments to be allowed unless there is non-compensable prejudice.

Finding no prejudice that could not be compensated in costs, the court granted the defendant leave to bring the motion and leave to amend the pleading.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the statement of defence and for judgment, which they subsequently abandoned.

The defendants sought costs of $14,515.08 on a partial indemnity basis for the abandoned motion.

The court fixed the defendants' costs at $7,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements, noting that while the motion was not argued, the defendants' counsel had prepared materials and travelled for the hearing.

The court ordered that the costs not be payable until the conclusion of the action, as they may be deducted from any amounts found owing to the plaintiffs.

At a case management conference, the plaintiff sought an extension of time to serve expert reports because a pediatric neurologist required an MRI to finalize her opinion, and the MRI was delayed until December 2019.

The court granted the request and amended the timetable for the service of expert reports, setting new deadlines for the plaintiff's and defendants' reports.

A case conference was held following a Supreme Court of Canada decision that limited the class to personal users of the defendants' cell phone services.

The defendants intended to bring motions to enforce a costs ruling and revisit the certification order.

The plaintiff sought to proceed with examinations for discovery, while the defendants preferred to wait until after their motions were heard.

The court ordered that the discovery process proceed in tandem with the motions, as the issues raised by the defendants were primarily legal and would not significantly impact the scope of discoveries.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for document production in a proposed class proceeding regarding a data breach, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $9,281.82.

The plaintiffs argued for no costs due to divided success, or alternatively $2,500 or $5,000.

The court agreed with the plaintiffs' final alternative submission and awarded the defendants costs fixed at $5,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to exclude documents disclosed late by the defendants or, alternatively, to examine the defendants on them, citing non-compliance with disclosure rules.

The defendants also sought to examine the plaintiff on newly disclosed handwritten notes.

The court granted leave for the defendants to use their late-disclosed documents, but on terms that included an adjournment of the trial, an examination of the defendants on the documents, and payment of the plaintiff's costs thrown away.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to attend an examination regarding her late-disclosed notes, a request which was unopposed.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the self-represented plaintiff to fulfill undertakings given at her examination for discovery almost two years prior.

The plaintiff, who was scheduled for major surgery, had not filed responding materials.

The Master ordered the plaintiff to fulfill the undertakings but granted an extended deadline to accommodate her medical situation, and provided guidance on how to fulfill the undertakings.

The court, on its own initiative following a defendant's request, considered dismissing the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The plaintiff's claim included allegations of racism, defamation, and harassment, along with gratuitous details about the defendant's personal life.

The court noted the plaintiff had previously been declared a vexatious litigant in family law matters.

Applying the robust interpretation of Rule 2.1, the court found the claim appeared frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process on its face.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiff regarding the potential dismissal and stayed the action pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The plaintiff sued its land planner and construction manager for professional negligence, alleging they failed to apply for a building permit before a new municipal by-law came into effect, resulting in the plaintiff paying $266,157.22 in development charges.

The defendants brought summary judgment motions arguing the claims were statute-barred.

The court granted the motions, finding that the plaintiff discovered the material facts of the claim in 2011 when it learned the charges could have been avoided with a timely permit application, making the 2015 actions out of time under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The applicant buyer and respondent seller entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for commercial real estate.

The agreement included a financing condition that required the buyer to pay a second deposit 'at the time' of notifying the seller that the condition was waived.

The buyer waived the condition late in the evening on the deadline date but did not provide the second deposit until the following afternoon.

The seller took the position that the agreement was terminated.

The court found that, in the context of the factual matrix and the 'time is of the essence' clause, the parties intended for the deposit to be paid contemporaneously with the waiver.

The buyer's application for specific performance was dismissed, and the seller's application for a declaration that the agreement was void was granted.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order regarding undertakings and refusals.

The court denied the motion, noting that the moving party failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure by not filing a motion record, factum, or book of authorities.

Furthermore, the court found no palpable or overriding error in the motion judge's determination of the relevant time period for document production.

Following a jury trial involving two related actions, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court held that the same cost considerations applied to both plaintiffs in the related proceedings.

As a result, the plaintiff in this action was ordered to pay costs to the defendants.

The court fixed the costs payable at $35,000.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim regarding a parking space, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57, including the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party and the proportionality of the value of the parking space in dispute.

The defendants were awarded costs fixed at $28,000, inclusive of interest and taxes.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a procurement dispute arising from a waste haulage contract tender.

The plaintiff carrier alleged its bid was wrongly rejected as non‑compliant despite literal compliance with the tender terms and sought damages for lost profits.

The court held the motion record was inadequate and contained unresolved evidentiary conflicts regarding the interpretation of tender documents, the purpose of amendments to the request for quotation, and the municipality’s handling of clarification opportunities.

The court found that the summary judgment process would not provide a fair and just determination of the dispute.

A full trial was required in the interests of justice.