Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

Following a trial where the plaintiff successfully proved a construction lien and defeated the defendants' counterclaim, the court determined the costs and interest payable.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $225,504.45, while the defendants argued for $85,000.

The court awarded the plaintiff $175,000 in substantial indemnity costs, citing the defendants' unreasonable conduct, misleading evidence, and failure to accept multiple generous offers to settle.

The court also awarded prejudgment interest at the contractual rate of 25%.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from the defendant's failure to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant had agreed to purchase the plaintiffs' property but failed to obtain financing after a market correction.

The defendant communicated his inability to close prior to the closing date and failed to participate in closing preparations.

The court found that the defendant anticipatorily breached the agreement, relieving the plaintiffs of the obligation to tender perfectly.

The plaintiffs were awarded damages for the difference in sale price and carrying costs.

The Representative Plaintiffs in a certified class action sought leave to dismiss the action due to a lack of reasonable prospect of success after an expert report undermined their case.

The Defendants did not oppose the dismissal but sought substantial partial indemnity costs for a withdrawn summary judgment motion and for defending the class action.

The Class Proceedings Fund, responsible for adverse costs, argued the Defendants' costs claim was excessive.

The court granted leave to dismiss the action and awarded the Defendants $300,000 in total partial indemnity costs, significantly less than the $750,025.31 sought by the Defendants but more than the $65,000 proposed by the Fund.

The applicants brought an application under section 83 of the Municipal Elections Act to declare the 2018 municipal election in Lambton Shores invalid.

The applicants alleged nine distinct irregularities, primarily focusing on the municipality's exclusive use of internet and telephone voting, the removal of names from the voters' list, and privacy concerns.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no evidence of any irregularities that led to the disenfranchisement of eligible voters or the enfranchisement of ineligible voters.

The court concluded that the municipality complied with the Act and that the applicants' complaints stemmed from a personal distrust of electronic voting rather than actionable statutory breaches.

The plaintiffs sought orders for payment of funds into court and a vesting order against the defendants' property (26 Merrittonia Street) to secure potential judgment for breach of contract related to a failed real estate transaction for a different property (14 Annual Circle).

The plaintiffs had also registered a Caution against the Merrittonia property.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to discharge the Caution, declare no plaintiff interest in the property, and seek leave to issue a third-party claim.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding they had no interest in the Merrittonia property to support a Caution or vesting order, and their claim was for damages, not a specific fund.

The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, ordering the discharge of the Caution and granting leave for the third-party claim.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel defendant Kwang Eui Chang to comply with a prior asset disclosure order and to impose a discovery plan.

The defendant argued the asset disclosure order had expired due to lack of proper service and opposed the discovery plan based on an anticipated security for costs motion.

The court found the prior order remained binding, dismissing the defendant's arguments regarding expiry and the delay of discovery.

A detailed discovery plan was imposed, including deadlines for affidavits of documents and scheduling examinations for discovery for all parties, with provisions for remote participation and interpreter costs.

The court amended its initial costs decision regarding an unsuccessful Request for Directions under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The initial decision directed Canada to pay costs to the Requestor.

The Requestor's counsel sought an amendment to have the cheque made payable to his law firm in trust, as the Requestor was never intended to be exposed to costs.

The court granted the amendment, directing Canada to issue a new cheque payable to the counsel's professional corporation in trust upon return of the original cheque.

The moving parties, two commercial establishments, sought leave to appeal the dismissal of their motions for summary judgment.

The plaintiff had sustained a severe traumatic brain injury after falling down stairs at a rented chalet following a night of drinking at the moving parties' establishments.

The moving parties argued their duty of care ended when the plaintiff reached the chalet.

The court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that foreseeability of risk and the sobriety of the plaintiff's companions were issues requiring a trial.

The moving party sought default judgment against the defendants for fraudulently obtaining pre‑retirement death benefits and health and welfare benefits by falsely claiming that a union member had died.

The defendants had previously pleaded guilty in criminal proceedings involving the same fraudulent scheme and were noted in default in the civil action.

The court held that the admitted facts established fraud, deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

Judgment was granted for the amounts paid out under the benefit plans, together with punitive damages and declarations preventing the defendants from receiving future benefits until the debt was repaid or permitting set‑off against any future entitlements.

The defendant, APP Capital Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for breach of an employment contract and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff, the former CFO of the co-defendant corporation, claimed entitlement to compensation under a 2008 employment agreement following the sale of the corporation.

The court applied the framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin and found that a genuine issue requiring a trial existed regarding whether the moving party was bound by the 2008 agreement.

The court declined to use its fact-finding powers due to incomplete documentary discovery and the potential for inconsistent verdicts, dismissing the motion.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowners for unpaid progress payments and extras on a home renovation project.

The defendants counterclaimed for the cost of completing the work, correcting deficiencies, and delay damages, alleging the plaintiff abandoned the job.

The court found that the defendants breached the contract by refusing to pay a progress invoice and failing to negotiate reasonably.

The court awarded the plaintiff $19,978, calculated by taking the balance owed on the contract and extras, less credits to the defendants for incomplete and deficient work.

Following a two‑day civil trial, the court determined the issue of costs after the parties were unable to agree.

Both sides argued that they had beaten their respective offers to settle, but the court found neither offer engaged the cost consequences under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis throughout.

However, the court reduced the amount sought due to concerns about the hourly rate claimed, the matter having been suitable for the Simplified Procedure, and duplication arising from multiple legal professionals working on the file.

The court fixed costs at $12,500 plus HST and undisputed disbursements.

The plaintiff freight broker brought a subrogated action for $60,000 after a shipment of frozen food was lost in transit between Illinois and Ontario.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the defendant carrier, Load Solutions Inc. The court found that the plaintiff had adduced sufficient evidence to prove the contract of carriage and the carrier's failure to deliver the goods.

The defendant failed to put its best foot forward or provide evidence to raise a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was granted.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing the action as abandoned and to restore the action.

The proceeding had been commenced by notice of action but no statement of claim was filed within the required 30 days and the notice of action had been served without the statement of claim contrary to Rule 14.03.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the extensive delay, including a two‑year delay after learning of the dismissal order before bringing the motion.

Applying the factors governing restoration of dismissed actions, the court found inadequate explanation of delay, insufficient evidence of inadvertence, and failure to bring the motion promptly.

The request to add individual police officers as defendants was also barred by the limitation period.

A solicitor brought a motion to strike portions of a client’s affidavit filed in opposition to confirmation of a Report and Certificate of Assessment under the Solicitors Act.

The solicitor argued that the affidavit improperly raised issues about the retainer that should not be revisited after the assessment hearing and that the confirmation motion was analogous to an appeal limited to the record before the assessment officer.

The court found that the moving party had not identified any statutory or Rules of Civil Procedure authority permitting the striking of the affidavit based solely on its content.

Questions regarding the admissibility of the affidavit and the permissible scope of evidence on the confirmation motion were matters for the judge presiding over that hearing.

The motion was adjourned to be determined by the judge hearing the confirmation motion, with costs left to that judge’s discretion.

The plaintiff, operating as Carey Industries, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from carrying on business under the name 'Steve's Welding & Sandblasting Inc.' The plaintiff had previously operated under the trade name 'Steve's Welding & Sandblasting' for nearly 30 years before changing its name.

The individual defendant, a former owner and employee of the plaintiff, incorporated the competing business shortly after his departure.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found a serious issue to be tried regarding passing off, noting the identical trade name and evidence of actual customer confusion.

The court concluded the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm to its goodwill and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

In a personal injury action, the defendants sought an order compelling the plaintiff to attend an occupational therapy assessment to address alleged functional limitations and future care costs.

The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing that two defence medical examinations had already occurred and that any occupational therapy assessment should be limited to an interview.

The court considered its jurisdiction under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and the developing jurisprudence permitting assessments by non-medical practitioners where reasonably required.

Given that the plaintiff intended to rely on an occupational therapist’s future care cost analysis at trial, fairness required that the defence be permitted to obtain its own functional assessment.

The court concluded that the requested examination, including physical functional testing, was necessary and not unreasonably intrusive.

During a scheduled motion hearing, the plaintiffs sought an adjournment and additional procedural orders, including the examination of corporate legal counsel whose affidavit was attached to another affiant’s evidence and permission to communicate verbally with a former lawyer involved in the matter.

The defendants did not oppose the adjournment but objected to the additional requests.

The court adjourned the motion and imposed a timetable for cross-examinations and filings during the adjournment period.

The court declined to order the requested examination of the corporate counsel, finding the examination of the primary affiant sufficient.

Due to concerns about prior abusive voicemail communications, the court ordered that all communications with specified individuals occur only in writing.

Following a personal injury jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court determined costs after the parties failed to agree.

The jury awarded modest damages, but the plaintiff’s general damages and Family Law Act damages were unrecoverable due to the Insurance Act threshold.

The plaintiffs obtained judgment less favourable than the defendant’s Rule 49 offer to settle, triggering cost consequences under Rule 49.10(2).

The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs up to the date of the defendant’s offer and awarded the defendant substantial partial indemnity costs thereafter.

Separate costs were also awarded to the defendants-by-counterclaim who successfully defended a Negligence Act contribution and indemnity claim.

Following a successful motion removing a litigation guardian and counsel due to conflict of interest, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendants sought approximately $19,500 in costs.

The court considered whether costs should be ordered personally against the litigation guardian who defended the motion rather than against the incapable plaintiff represented by the guardian.

Relying on jurisprudence concerning the role and protection of litigation guardians, the court held that personal cost consequences should generally not be imposed absent bad faith or frivolous conduct.

The motion had been defended unsuccessfully but not improperly, and costs were therefore awarded against the plaintiffs rather than personally against the litigation guardian.