Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

Following an order enforcing the plaintiff's mortgage against the proceeds of sale of a mortgaged property, the plaintiff sought costs of $33,342.15 on a substantial indemnity basis as provided in the mortgage.

The defendants argued the plaintiff was not entitled to costs for a prior motion to set aside a default judgment that was settled and deemed abandoned.

The court held that under Rule 37.09(3), the plaintiff was entitled to costs of the abandoned motion.

The court found the claimed costs were proportionate and reasonable, awarding the full amount sought.

The applicant, Cash Cloud Inc., sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent, BitAccess Inc., from terminating a Master Purchase Agreement, deactivating cloud-based software used for cryptocurrency kiosks, and deleting customer data.

The court found it had jurisdiction to grant interim relief despite a mandatory arbitration clause.

The court granted a 60-day order preserving the customer data to allow the applicant to download it.

However, the court dismissed the injunction to restrain the software deactivation because the applicant failed to provide the mandatory undertaking as to damages required by Rule 40.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action regarding a collapsed hog barn, arguing it was barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs argued the limitation period was tolled due to the defendants' wilful concealment of construction deficiencies.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the fraudulent concealment exception for the corporate defendants and dismissed their motion.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the action against the individual engineer defendants, finding they were protected by a limitation of liability clause in their employer's contract.

The plaintiff, a person under disability following a motor vehicle accident, applied for approval of a combined tort and accident benefits settlement of $1,525,000.

The court reviewed the proposed legal fees and disbursements under a contingency agreement, approving the fees but reducing the payable disbursements to only those recovered from the insurer, as per the agreement's terms.

The court declined to approve the proposed structured settlement, ordering plaintiff's counsel to file a case manager report demonstrating how the structure would meet the plaintiff's future needs.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the Court in an application challenging the constitutionality of amendments to the Election Finances Act.

The respondents opposed the intervention, arguing the CCLA would not provide a distinct perspective from the applicants.

The court granted the motion, finding that the CCLA's expertise in civil liberties and its broader policy perspective on the balance between free speech and fair elections would provide a useful and distinct contribution without causing prejudice or delaying the proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment on liability in a solicitor's negligence action against their former lawyer and his firm.

The plaintiffs alleged the lawyer failed to prepare a promissory note to support a General Security Agreement, weakening their bargaining position with a debtor.

The court found that while the lawyer breached the standard of care by acting in a conflict of interest and failing to prepare the note, the plaintiffs suffered no compensable loss as the debt was recognized, secured, and largely repaid.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion and granted a 'boomerang' summary judgment dismissing the action entirely.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, alleging the defendants failed to satisfactorily complete earth works and grading on their property as required by the minutes of settlement.

The parties relied on conflicting unsworn engineering reports regarding the adequacy of a buffer zone, berms, and general conformance with the grading plan.

The court found it could not resolve the factual disputes on the written record alone.

The court withheld its final order for 45 days to allow the parties to make submissions on holding a mini-trial or ordering the experts to meet and confer under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

This decision addresses a costs award following a successful motion by the defendants, Ka An Development Co. Limited and Chang Yu Liu, to have the action against them stayed or dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or forum non conveniens.

The court awarded the defendants costs on a partial indemnity basis, totaling $83,448.81, considering their complete success on the dispositive motion, the plaintiffs' unreasonable resistance to setting aside a noting of default, and the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the motion timetable and file responding costs submissions.

The respondent sought an urgent hearing for his long motion to set aside ten prior court orders, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to improper service under the Hague Service Convention.

He claimed urgency due to his precarious immigration status, inability to work, frozen bank accounts, revoked Canadian passport by FRO, and expiring health insurance amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbated by pre-existing medical conditions.

The applicant opposed the urgency request.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for an urgent hearing, finding his urgent situation largely self-made due to his own delays, non-compliance with previous court orders, and failure to seek appropriate relief or return to Canada when able.

The court also noted the potential issue of attornment to jurisdiction.

Dentons Canada LLP brought a motion to be removed as counsel of record for the applicants, citing a conflict of interest and a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The applicants opposed the motion, arguing they had paid a flat fee to bring the matter to a final resolution and still wanted Dentons to represent them.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants would be substantially prejudiced by the removal due to the complexity of the file, the impending hearing date, and the significant costs of retaining new counsel.

The court also found no actual conflict of interest or loss of confidence.

The Plaintiffs brought a refusals motion seeking answers to questions refused during the examinations for discovery of the Attorney General of Canada's representatives.

The questions pertained to information gathered during inquiries into the torture of Canadian citizens by foreign governments, the adoption of non-party inquiry testimony, production of in camera inquiry transcripts, and underlying evidence for allegations made against the Plaintiffs.

The court analyzed each refusal discretely, rejecting a global proportionality argument, and ordered some questions to be answered while upholding refusals for others, particularly those asking the AGC to adopt non-party testimony.

The court initiated a Rule 2.1.01 process to determine whether the plaintiff’s action should be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Notice was provided to the plaintiff inviting written submissions.

No submissions were received within the prescribed 15‑day period.

The court concluded the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court’s process and ordered it dismissed.

Following an unsuccessful motion by the defendant seeking to dismiss the plaintiff’s action on the basis of res judicata, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The motion involved complex legal issues including the doctrine of res judicata, conflict of laws, and analysis of a United States declaratory judgment forming the basis of the defendant’s argument.

The plaintiff sought substantial partial indemnity costs reflecting extensive research, including evidence from U.S. counsel regarding American law.

The court found the claimed hours excessive for a one‑day motion but accepted that the issues were complex and important.

The court fixed reasonable partial indemnity costs and allowed the claimed disbursements.

The plaintiff moved under rule 37.14(1)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing her wrongful dismissal action for delay under rule 48.14(5).

The court applied the contextual analysis derived from appellate jurisprudence and considered the four Reid factors: explanation for the delay, inadvertence in missing the deadline, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendant.

While the plaintiff established inadvertence and moved promptly after learning of the dismissal, the court found the litigation delay inadequately explained and concluded that the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice arising from the expiry of the limitation period.

Balancing the competing principles of deciding cases on their merits and ensuring timely justice, the court declined to grant a further indulgence.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was therefore refused.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the corporate plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

The court also addressed a request by the defendant for leave under Rule 39.02(2) to file a late affidavit after cross‑examinations, which was refused because the evidence should have been delivered earlier and did not justify departure from the rule’s purpose of ensuring parties know the case to meet before cross‑examination.

On the security for costs issue, the court found there was good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets, given substantial debts and writs of execution.

However, the plaintiff failed to establish impecuniosity due to insufficient evidence regarding the finances of the shareholder and the principal beneficiary of the action.

Although the claim was found to have a good chance of success, balancing the interests of the parties justified ordering staged security for costs.

A former bank employee brought an application seeking payment of allegedly outstanding bonuses under a Restricted Share Unit plan following his resignation.

The employer denied liability on the basis that the plan provided for forfeiture of unvested units upon resignation.

The applicant argued that the forfeiture provision operated as an unreasonable restraint of trade and was unconscionable.

The court held that the evidentiary record was insufficient to determine whether the provision constituted an enforceable restraint of trade and concluded that the issues raised involved material factual disputes.

The court determined that the matter was not properly brought by way of application and directed that submissions be made regarding continuation of the proceeding as a trial.

The appellants appealed a Master’s order refusing to dismiss most aspects of a counterclaim on a summary judgment motion in a mortgage enforcement action.

The counterclaim alleged vandalism, burglary, trespass, breach of contract, conspiracy, and repayment of fees deducted from the mortgage advance.

The appellants argued that the Master misapprehended the evidence and improperly shifted the burden by requiring them to disprove the respondents’ allegations.

The court held that the appellants failed to adduce evidence specifically addressing several pleaded claims or linking their evidence to the alleged causes of action.

The Master applied the correct legal principles and committed no palpable and overriding error.

The defendants moved to strike parts of the plaintiff's statement of claim, which sought damages for the delay in marketing its generic drug caused by the defendants' actions under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations.

The plaintiff claimed damages under s. 8 of the Regulations, unjust enrichment, and the Trade-marks Act after the defendants' patent was declared invalid.

The court dismissed the motion to strike these claims, finding they had a reasonable prospect of success and raised unsettled legal questions, but struck a bald claim for remedies 'otherwise available at law'.

The plaintiffs brought a defamation action against the defendant arising from a public response letter published after a newspaper article criticizing the defendant’s investigation into farm animal conditions.

The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the publication was protected by qualified privilege, while the plaintiffs cross-moved to strike the defence.

The court held that the evidentiary record was insufficient to determine whether the defence of qualified privilege applied or had been defeated by malice.

Numerous factual disputes concerning the underlying investigation, the accuracy of the statements made, and the defendant’s dominant motive required credibility assessments that could only properly occur at trial.

Both motions were therefore dismissed and the issue of qualified privilege left to be determined on a full evidentiary record.

Following a successful defence motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim for delay, the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $42,000.

The court accepted that elevated costs were justified due to the plaintiff’s nearly twenty‑year failure to advance the litigation.

However, the court found the defendants’ bill of costs inadequately detailed and the claimed amount excessive.

Balancing the plaintiff’s unexplained delay against the insufficient cost justification, the court fixed a reduced substantial indemnity award.