Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The plaintiffs brought a motion to settle a Rule 7 Order pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, following the dismissal of their certification motion for a proposed class action regarding systemic abuse in amateur hockey.

The court reviewed and settled the revised Draft Section 7 Plan, which transitions the proposed class action into up to 60 joinder actions against the defendant hockey teams and leagues.

The court approved the notice plan, opt-in procedures, and case management provisions, with minor revisions to protect player privacy and ensure efficient administration.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add two proposed defendants in an action for property damage arising from home renovations.

The proposed defendants opposed the motion, arguing the limitation period had expired.

The court found that the plaintiffs provided a reasonable explanation for not discovering the involvement of the proposed defendants earlier, as they could not have known without being advised by the named defendants.

The court granted leave to add the proposed defendants, allowing them to plead a limitation period defence.

The applicants, acting as attorneys under 2022 powers of attorney, sought to invalidate 2023 powers of attorney granted to the respondents (the incapable person's sons) on the basis of incapacity.

At a case conference, the court considered interim arrangements for the incapable person's care and discharge from the hospital.

Finding a strong prima facie case that the 2023 powers of attorney were invalid, the court granted an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the respondents from acting under them, thereby leaving the applicants with exclusive authority to move the incapable person to a private rehabilitation facility pending the final hearing.

The applicant brought a motion to compel arbitration of a dispute arising from a real estate development project governed by a Co-Ownership Agreement.

The parties agreed the dispute should be arbitrated but disagreed on whether the corporate mortgagees and individual guarantors were bound by the arbitration clause.

The court applied the competence-competence principle, holding that the arbitrator must determine their own jurisdiction and decide which parties are subject to the arbitration, as the issue involved mixed fact and law requiring contractual interpretation.

The defendants brought a motion for contempt against the plaintiff, alleging the plaintiff breached interim and interlocutory injunctions prohibiting the use, removal, or modification of conduit supplied and installed by the defendants.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the orders were clear, the plaintiff had knowledge of them, and the plaintiff intentionally breached the orders by connecting fibre optic cable in the prohibited conduit.

The plaintiff was found in contempt, with the penalty phase to follow.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's amended amended statement of claim, arguing it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and was devoid of material facts.

The plaintiff's claims arose from a slip and fall in prison, the loss of his personal files by Correctional Services Canada, and alleged unlawful confinement following a successful appeal.

The court struck the pleading in its entirety due to its deficiencies but granted the plaintiff leave to deliver a fresh as amended statement of claim limited to negligence for the slip and fall and lost files, and properly particularized claims regarding his release conditions.

A case conference was held to establish a timetable for three actions arising from a water loss incident.

The moving party confirmed it owned the water heater and did not retain maintenance services, leading the responding parties to seek instructions to dismiss the action against the rental and maintenance companies.

The parties agreed to a schedule for discoveries and to an order that the three actions be tried together.

The defendant university sought to dismiss the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found the claim to be an unintelligible, rambling discourse that failed to disclose a valid cause of action.

However, noting that attached documents suggested a potential core complaint regarding the university's failure to follow a collective agreement when declaring the plaintiff persona non grata, the court dismissed the claim without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff 20 days to deliver an amended statement of claim complying with the Rules.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court previously dismissed the claims relating to online expressions on matters of public interest.

In these supplementary reasons, the court considered whether s. 137.1 requires the dismissal of the entire proceeding, including claims for harassment and an expression unrelated to the public interest.

The court held that 'proceeding' in s. 137.1 does not mandate an 'all or nothing' dismissal, and claims not grounded in public interest expression must be allowed to continue.

At a fourth case management conference, the court addressed ongoing procedural issues in an action involving self-represented plaintiffs.

The court directed that future examinations for discovery proceed orally rather than by written interrogatory due to complications.

The court declined to waive mandatory mediation and deferred the plaintiffs' request to schedule a summary judgment motion until they could properly frame it in accordance with the principles of partial summary judgment.

Various other procedural directions were made, including delegating certain discovery motions to a Case Management Master.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action regarding the termination of several franchise and non-branded agreements for convenience stores at remote campsites.

The defendant argued it terminated the agreements in accordance with their clear provisions and a client's cost-cutting directive.

The plaintiff argued the termination breached the agreements, the defendant's Code of Conduct, and obligations of good faith, alleging the defendant terminated the agreements to appropriate the business for itself.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff raised genuine issues requiring a trial.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the action from the Central West Region (Milton) to the Toronto Region.

The underlying action involved a commercial lease dispute regarding premises located in Toronto.

The court applied the holistic balancing test under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the proceeding had no rational connection to the Central West Region, the court granted the motion and ordered the action transferred to Toronto.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim in a wrongful dismissal action.

The impugned paragraphs alleged director liability for unpaid wages and oppression, as well as health and safety violations by the corporate defendants.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead the necessary material facts to establish director liability under the OBCA and ESA, and that the health and safety allegations improperly pleaded evidence rather than material facts.

The motion to strike was granted, but the plaintiff was granted leave to amend the claim.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for back injuries sustained during a job demonstration.

Following a four-day liability trial, the action was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs.

The successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $156,015.04.

The plaintiffs argued for minimal costs due to their impecuniosity and criticized the defendants' conduct regarding adjournments and witness calling.

The court fixed the defendants' costs at $135,000, inclusive of disbursements and H.S.T., finding the plaintiffs' impecuniosity unsupported by sufficient evidence to warrant a reduction.

The applicants brought a motion for the production of documents subject to solicitor-client privilege relating to the negotiation of a tax indemnification provision in an agreement.

The applicants sought rectification of the agreement, arguing the parties had a common understanding that was mistakenly omitted.

The respondent relied on affidavits from its principal and its former legal counsel to assert its intention regarding the provision.

The court held that by relying on these affidavits, which implicitly put the respondent's state of mind and legal advice in issue, the respondent had waived solicitor-client privilege.

The court ordered reciprocal disclosure of all solicitor-client communications relating to the negotiation of the agreement.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for a one-quarter share of the assets of a family business operated in China.

The defendants argued there was no evidence or corporate documentation supporting the plaintiff's legal entitlement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial due to conflicting evidence regarding the nature of the business, the existence of an oral agreement among family members, and the defendants' failure to provide adequate documentary disclosure.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a proposed class action for damages pursuant to s. 130 of the Securities Act.

The defendants consented to certification, except for the plaintiff's proposed class definition which included purchasers in the secondary market.

The court held that s. 130(1) of the Act does not provide a statutory cause of action to purchasers in the secondary market, and revised the class definition accordingly before granting certification.

The plaintiff sought damages after suffering a fractured elbow while roller skating at the defendant’s rink.

The evidence established a longstanding problem with water dripping from the roof onto the skating floor, which the occupier addressed only through buckets and pylons rather than repairing the roof or closely monitoring the skating surface.

The court found the occupier breached its duty of care under the Occupier’s Liability Act by failing to adequately manage the known hazard and by failing to properly monitor the skating floor.

The plaintiff’s fall was found to have been caused by striking a displaced pylon and the presence of water on the floor.

The court rejected defences of voluntary assumption of risk but found the plaintiff contributorily negligent for failing to notice a visible pylon while skating backwards.

The defendants brought a motion seeking leave and an order striking the statement of claim and dismissing the action due to the plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with two court orders requiring attendance for continued examination for discovery.

The plaintiff failed to attend four scheduled discovery dates and provided no adequate evidence explaining the breaches.

The court held that although the plaintiff’s conduct demonstrated non-compliance with court orders, the record did not justify immediate dismissal of the action given the procedural context and the absence of a clear "last chance" order.

Applying a contextual approach to sanctions for breach of court orders, the court declined to dismiss the action but imposed strict conditions compelling attendance for discovery and compliance with undertakings.

The court issued a final "last chance" order warning that any further failure to attend would result in dismissal of the action.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default summary judgment that had set aside two property transfers as fraudulent conveyances.

The court found that the defendant failed to satisfy the preconditions for setting aside a default judgment, as his explanation for the default was implausible, he delayed in seeking relief, and he failed to present a defence on the merits.

The court also rejected the argument that the plaintiff had no standing to attack the transfers because he was not a creditor at the time they were made, noting that the Fraudulent Conveyances Act protects both past and future victims of fraud.

The motion was dismissed.