Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The applicant sought an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal a costs order issued by Smith J. The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant's explanation for the delay illogical and noting significant prejudice to the respondents due to the unpaid costs.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal lacked merit, as the applicant's grounds were too general and did not demonstrate a palpable and overriding error or error of law, which is required for leave to appeal costs orders.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant mortgagor following a default on a second mortgage.

The defendant admitted liability for the principal and interest but disputed liability for mortgage discharge fees.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the default.

However, the court declined to award the claimed discharge fees, as the plaintiff had not yet incurred them and there was no evidence they were a genuine pre-estimate of damages.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the principal and missed interest payments, plus partial indemnity costs.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' challenge to Western University's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, the university sought partial indemnity costs of $97,721.11.

The applicants argued no costs should be awarded as the case was public interest litigation.

The court rejected this argument, finding the case lacked the exceptional nature required to deviate from the usual costs rules, and noted the applicants were backed by a litigation fund.

The court awarded the university costs fixed at $75,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion to fix costs from previous motions after the trial judge retired, to vary a previous judgment to make funds payable directly to her, and to recover collection costs and costs thrown away.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to terminate a garnishment, arguing the previous judgment was fully satisfied.

The court found the previous judgment was not fully satisfied and dismissed the defendant's motion.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that no limitation period applies to enforcing court orders for costs, and that Rule 59.06 and the court's inherent jurisdiction allowed it to fix the costs of the previous motions.

The defendant was ordered to pay $117,067.49.

The plaintiff sought a case conference after the defendant's counsel delayed scheduling a mediation, proposing a date in February 2022.

The court found this delay unacceptable, citing the Supreme Court's direction in Hryniak v. Mauldin to move cases forward in a timely manner.

The court emphasized the importance of mediation in the civil justice system and ordered the parties to hold a mediation before November 30, 2021, along with setting deadlines for updated medical reports and defence medical examinations.

Five organizations brought motions to intervene in an application challenging the constitutionality of the Safe Streets Act.

The applicant consented and the respondent did not oppose.

The court applied the test for intervention under Rule 13.02 and found that all five proposed intervenors—the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Aboriginal Legal Services, Justice for Children and Youth, the Income Security Advocacy Centre, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association—met the criteria.

Each organization demonstrated special expertise, a real and substantial interest in the proceedings, and the ability to provide an important and distinct perspective.

The motions to intervene were granted.

The plaintiff, the Ontario Securities Commission, moved for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the transfer of a Welland home from the defendants, a husband and wife, to the wife alone was a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat creditors.

The husband owed an outstanding fine to the plaintiff for breaches of the Securities Act.

The court found that the transfer was made for nominal consideration and with the acknowledged intent to protect the property from creditors.

The court granted summary judgment, declaring the conveyance fraudulent and void, and alternatively found that the husband retained an interest in the property via resulting and constructive trusts.

The applicants purchased property subject to a 99-year lease held by the respondent flying club.

Seven years later, the applicants sought to declare the lease void for contravening the Planning Act, arguing it was executed after an amendment that repealed an exemption for long-term leases.

The respondent argued the lease was saved by the doctrine of part performance prior to the amendment.

The court applied the four-part test for part performance and found that the respondent's actions, including surveying the property, making improvements, and paying rent, constituted part performance prior to the amendment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought an order of mandamus to compel the Town of Georgina to approve a fill application and issue a permit.

The court reviewed the requirements for mandamus and the parties' positions on the standard of review and municipal discretion.

Ultimately, the court raised a jurisdictional issue, noting that under section 6(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, applications for relief in the nature of mandamus must generally be brought in the Divisional Court.

The court granted the parties 60 days to make submissions on jurisdiction, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved for judgment in the amount of $150,000 based on Minutes of Settlement, following the defendants' default on installment payments.

The court considered whether the consent to judgment constituted an unenforceable penalty clause or if relief from forfeiture was warranted for payments already made.

The court found the stipulated sum was not unconscionable given the negotiated nature of the settlement and the original claim amount.

Relief from forfeiture was denied as the bargain was not unconscionable and the defendants were dilatory in seeking relief.

The motion for judgment was granted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The City of Toronto and its Chief Building Official applied under s. 38 of the Building Code Act, 1992, for orders compelling Nikolaos Lambrinos and 1187310 Ontario Limited to remove unauthorized construction and comply with building and zoning by-laws at 102 and 104 Ulster Street.

The properties had a long history of unapproved additions and conversion into multiple dwelling units, deemed unsafe.

The respondents' defenses, including claims of non-receipt of orders and alleged permits, were rejected due to lack of credibility and evidence.

The court found flagrant and unjustified violations of the Building Code Act and Ontario Building Code, making retrospective approval impossible.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the law firm that successfully represented the mother of his child in prior family court proceedings.

The plaintiff sought $750,000 in damages and an order banning the firm from practicing law, having previously failed to overturn the child support order and having a prior civil action against the mother stayed as an abuse of process.

The court found the action appeared frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and directed the Registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, staying the action pending a written hearing.

The moving party sought reconsideration of a costs order arising from a garnishment motion related to enforcement of a judgment exceeding $400,000.

The court reviewed its earlier endorsement under Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows amendment of an order containing an accidental slip or omission.

The court found that it had inadvertently failed to address relief sought in an amended notice of motion requiring a numbered corporation and an individual to disgorge funds received from a third party for the judgment debtor’s services.

Concluding the omission resulted from an accidental oversight, the court amended its prior endorsement to require payment of the amounts received, with interest, to the sheriff pursuant to the garnishment.

The motion to set aside the earlier costs order was dismissed.

Following a prior decision granting summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiff’s action as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendants sought approximately $75,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff argued that $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis was reasonable.

The court held that substantial indemnity was not justified because the plaintiff had not engaged in improper, vexatious, or unnecessary conduct and the procedural steps taken were pursuant to court orders.

Applying the principles in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council of Ontario and the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed costs at $35,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action arising from a shotgun buy-sell offer in a partnership dispute.

The plaintiffs claimed the offer was invalid, and alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and oppression.

The court found that the shotgun buy-sell offer was valid and complied with the partnership agreement.

The court also dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and oppression, finding that the defendants were entitled to exercise their contractual rights.

However, the court directed a trial on three specific breach of contract issues relating to closing arrangements and the calculation of net earnings.

The defendants moved to stay the plaintiffs' action for wrongful dismissal and oppression under the CBCA, arguing the dispute was subject to a broad arbitration clause in a unanimous shareholders agreement.

The plaintiffs argued the arbitration clause did not cover employment matters and that forcing arbitration would be oppressive.

The court applied the Mantini test, found the arbitration clause was broad enough to cover the dispute, and held that proceeding to arbitration would not be oppressive as all remedies sought could be pursued there.

The motion to stay the action was granted.

Following earlier summary judgment and Rule 21 rulings, the court determined the appropriate costs award between the parties.

The plaintiff obtained summary judgment against the corporate defendant for misappropriated funds and successfully resisted the individual defendant’s Rule 21 motion challenging the pleadings, but failed on its claim against the individual defendant under Rule 20.

The court held that costs should follow the overall result and rejected the defendants’ argument that costs should be parsed according to individual legal arguments or sub‑issues.

Taking into account the plaintiff’s partial lack of success against the individual defendant, the court reduced the claimed amount and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The two defendants were held jointly and severally liable for the costs award.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment, the successful defendants sought costs of $23,895.43.

The plaintiff argued for reduced costs because the defendants brought two separate summary judgment motions when one would have sufficed.

The court agreed that the duplication of proceedings warranted a reduction and fixed the defendants' costs at $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendants in an elder abuse and property dispute action brought a third-party claim against the plaintiffs' children, alleging they had maliciously meddled in the family relationship and turned the plaintiffs against the defendants.

The third parties moved to strike the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, holding that the law of torts does not regulate family interactions or compensate for bruised feelings, and noted that the tort of alienation of affection was abolished in Ontario in 1978.

In a medical malpractice and conspiracy action, a defendant physician moved for summary judgment and to strike claims under Rules 20, 21.01(3)(d), and 25.11.

The court held that the conspiracy allegations required the forensic machinery of a trial and declined to apply the best-foot-forward principle on this record.

On the malpractice claim, the court found the existing anesthesiologist report insufficient on the general practitioner standard of care but concluded a treating physician was not categorically disqualified from providing qualifying opinion evidence.

The motion was made conditional on service of a compliant report within 30 days, failing which the action against the moving physician would be dismissed with costs.