Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for a declaration that Economical Insurance held a valid and enforceable policy for a vehicle involved in a motor vehicle accident that caused catastrophic injuries to one of the plaintiffs.

Economical brought a cross-motion for a declaration that any claim regarding the accident was invalid and the right of recovery forfeited, citing the insured's failure to disclose material changes in risk, including the driver's G2 license status, a license suspension, and exclusive possession of the vehicle.

The court found that significant credibility issues regarding the driver's residency and vehicle use precluded a determination by summary judgment.

Instead of dismissing the motions, the court directed a "mini-trial" under Rule 20.04(2.2) to resolve these specific factual disputes.

The plaintiff sought damages for a slip and fall incident on the steps of a store during snowy winter conditions.

The court found the defendant, Bayview Summit Development Limited, 75% liable for failing to maintain a sufficient system of inspection, monitoring, and maintenance of the premises.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout and not using the handrail.

The decision emphasizes the occupier's duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act and the standard of reasonableness, not perfection.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 31.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to examine two non-parties (the plaintiff's supervisor and a human resources representative) regarding the plaintiff's employment performance and termination.

The plaintiff alleged loss of income and earning capacity due to a motor vehicle accident.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to satisfy the first conjunctive factor of Rule 31.10(2)(a), as they had not demonstrated that they were unable to obtain the information from the plaintiff or that the plaintiff had constructively refused to provide it.

The court noted that the plaintiff had answered questions to the best of her ability and had provided her employment file, and that the defendants had not asked her to undertake to inquire further from her former employer.

The plaintiff, PPI Management Inc., sought to extend a Mareva injunction against the defendant Tianrui Li, freezing a Guaranteed Investment Certificate (GIC) alleged to be proceeds of a fraudulent scheme.

Li argued the initial injunction lacked foundation, that PPI made material non-disclosures, and that her evidence explained her actions, denying knowledge or involvement in the fraud.

The court found PPI established a strong prima facie case of Li's implication through recklessness or willful blindness, and a serious risk of asset dissipation.

The court dismissed Li's arguments regarding non-disclosure and continued the Mareva injunction until the final disposition of the underlying action, with costs awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff previously had his notice of garnishment against the defendant's spouse struck out.

The plaintiff subsequently accepted an offer to settle the costs of the garnishment proceedings for $58,958.85 but later reneged, demanding the defendant's debt be paid first.

The garnishee brought a motion under Rule 49.09 to enforce the settlement.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff had no basis to claim unfairness against the garnishee, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the settlement amount plus costs of the motion.

The plaintiff in a construction lien action sought leave under s. 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act to bring an interlocutory motion to compel answers to refusals from a cross-examination.

The cross-examination was on an affidavit sworn in support of the defendant's pending motion for security for costs.

The Master denied leave, finding that the proposed refusals motion would not expedite the resolution of the issues and was not necessary for the fair disposition of the pending security for costs motion.

Three sets of defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims arising from a 30-vehicle winter highway pileup.

The court granted the motion for one defendant (Seney), finding his vehicle was far removed from the main collision and did not contribute to the plaintiffs' injuries.

However, the court dismissed the motions for the other two defendants (Gill and McCallum), holding that while the case against them was not strong, granting partial summary judgment posed a significant risk of inconsistent verdicts at trial, as a jury could still apportion liability to them for allegedly blocking escape routes.

The applicant, a solar project supplier, sought damages of $1,468,293.40 from the respondent, the Independent Electricity System Operator, alleging ambiguity in the Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) contracts regarding the '120% rule'.

The applicant argued it was permitted to use the Nominal Operating Cell Temperature (NOCT) rating rather than the Standard Test Conditions (STC) rating.

The court dismissed the application, finding no ambiguity in the contracts when read as a whole, and held that STC is the universally accepted standard in the solar industry.

The court also found the applicant was contractually precluded from claiming damages.

The plaintiff, a meat processing company, brought a motion for a Mareva injunction against its former purchasing agent and related corporate and individual defendants.

The plaintiff alleged the purchasing agent engaged in a fraudulent scheme to receive secret commissions on meat purchases by funnelling money through a third-party corporation.

The court found an overwhelming prima facie case of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

Given the defendants' failure to produce relevant financial documents and evidence of asset dissipation, the court concluded there was a real risk of assets being removed or disposed of, and granted the Mareva injunction.

Following earlier reasons finding a binding agreement and liability for breach, the court addressed the remaining issue of damages concerning the valuation of shares under a draft partnership agreement.

The dispute centred on the meaning of “fair market value” and whether “earnings” in the contractual formula referred to gross commissions or net earnings after expenses.

The court held that, absent an express contractual definition, the traditional meaning of fair market value—an arm’s length price in the open market—should apply.

Applying principles of implied terms and contractual interpretation, the court concluded that earnings should be interpreted as net earnings rather than gross commissions to give business efficacy to the agreement.

Damages were therefore calculated based on net earnings.

The applicant mortgagee brought an interpleader application seeking directions regarding distribution of surplus proceeds from a power of sale after satisfaction of the mortgage and undisputed claims.

Competing claims were made by execution creditors, Legal Aid Ontario under a registered lien, and a party holding a lump sum child support order obtained five days after the closing date of the sale.

The court considered the priority scheme under the Mortgages Act and the Creditors’ Relief Act, as well as authorities addressing timing of encumbrances and support orders.

It held that priority under the Creditors’ Relief Act applies only where a support order exists at the relevant time and cannot retroactively displace encumbrancers whose interests existed at the date of sale.

Because the support order was made after closing, it ranked behind existing execution creditors and liens.

Following a jury trial where the plaintiffs recovered damages for general damages and future care but failed on claims for wage loss, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $247,000, while the defendants argued for partial indemnity costs around $105,300.

Applying the principles of reasonableness under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that substantial indemnity was not justified because there was no reprehensible conduct by the defendants.

The court emphasized that costs must be fair and proportionate to the result achieved.

Partial indemnity fees of $100,000 and disbursements of $50,000 inclusive of HST were awarded.

Competing applications were brought concerning whether a contractual dispute arising from the termination of an agreement to design and build a diabetes registry should proceed by arbitration or litigation.

One party sought appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to the dispute resolution clause in the agreement, while the other sought to have the dispute determined through litigation in the Superior Court and consolidated with related defamation proceedings.

Before hearing the applications, the court proposed procedural options, and the parties agreed to proceed with litigation in the Superior Court under case management with an expedited trial schedule.

The applications were adjourned to a case conference to establish a litigation plan, and related defamation actions were transferred to the Commercial List for coordinated management.

The applicant sought declarations regarding its contractual rights to historical interprovincial chicken supply quotas purchased from another processor.

The respondent brought a preliminary objection arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and the matter should be determined by the Chicken Farmers of Ontario (CFO) under its comprehensive regulatory scheme.

The court agreed, finding that the substance of the dispute concerned quota allocation, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFO and its administrative appeal process.

The application was dismissed as premature.

The defendant appealed a master's order requiring production of a lawyer's handwritten notes taken during a voluntary interview with the plaintiff when he was a potential witness in related litigation.

The defendant argued the notes were protected by litigation privilege as counsel's work product.

The court held that, to the extent the notes merely recorded the plaintiff's statements, litigation privilege did not apply because a party cannot claim confidentiality over statements made by the opposing party.

However, portions of the notes reflecting counsel's commentary, strategy, or analysis could remain privileged and be redacted.

The appeal was dismissed and the master's order permitting production with potential redactions was upheld.

The applicant sought a stay of a Master's order discharging a certificate of pending litigation over a development property pending appeal.

Applying the three‑part test for a stay, the court found the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm because the property was a commercial investment and any loss could be compensated through damages.

The court also held the balance of convenience favoured allowing the pending sale to a third‑party purchaser to proceed, noting the applicant’s weak claim to beneficial ownership and the uncertainty surrounding an alternative offer arranged by the applicant.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s $4.5 million action alleging that corporate sponsors of a soccer association owed a duty to ensure adequate insurance coverage for players, the court determined the issue of costs.

The successful defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs following a Rule 21 motion that terminated the claim at an early stage.

The court held that while the defendants were entitled to significant costs, the hours claimed by counsel were excessive and involved duplication of work.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the requested amounts and fixed reasonable costs payable to the successful defendants.

The applicant sought an order compelling the respondent to answer questions during an Ontario examination conducted pursuant to a Letter of Request issued by a California court in a civil securities fraud action.

The respondent refused to answer numerous questions, invoking the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution due to concerns that her answers could be used in a potential U.S. criminal investigation.

The court held that evidentiary procedures under a Letter of Request are governed by Canadian law, not foreign constitutional protections.

Concerns regarding the potential use of compelled testimony in U.S. criminal proceedings were matters for the American courts to determine.

The respondent was therefore required to answer the questions notwithstanding the asserted Fifth Amendment privilege.

The plaintiff brought a discovery motion seeking an order compelling a former employee to answer refused questions and produce documents relating to services provided to a former client after joining a competitor.

The claim alleged breach of confidence and misuse of confidential information following the departure of senior employees who subsequently serviced the same client at the competing firm.

The court applied the relevance principles governing examinations for discovery under Rules 30.03 and 31.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considered proportionality under Rule 29.2.03.

The court found the requests were not a fishing expedition because the pleadings contained specific allegations and there was circumstantial evidence supporting the line of inquiry.

The refused questions were ordered to be answered and related documents produced, subject to redaction of irrelevant commercially sensitive information.

Following a successful trial in which the plaintiff established that a property transfer between a debtor and her parents constituted a fraudulent conveyance designed to defeat a creditor, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court held that the defendant’s litigation conduct, including implausible testimony denying the fraudulent nature of the conveyance, justified elevated costs.

The court also considered whether costs could be awarded against non-parties who had funded and effectively controlled the litigation.

Applying principles governing non‑party costs liability, the court found that the parents were the real parties behind the defence and that it was just to hold them responsible.

Costs of $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST were awarded against the defendant and the non‑party parents.