Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The defendant, Denise Lee Downing, brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the civil action initiated by the plaintiffs, Bernard Sparr and D’Vine Estates Sarl.

The plaintiffs' action sought substantial damages, alleging economic harm due to the defendant's false testimony in a prior family law proceeding.

The court found that the plaintiffs' civil action was an indirect attempt to re-litigate issues already decided in the family court, where the plaintiff Sparr had previously appealed unsuccessfully and had been declared a vexatious litigant.

The court concluded that the action constituted an abuse of process and granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

A lawyer for the defendant brought an emergency motion to be removed as counsel of record.

Although the motion was abandoned, the court addressed the lawyer's significant failure to comply with Rules 15.04(1.2) and (1.3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which require redaction of privileged and prejudicial client information in "off-record" motions.

The court noted that the unredacted materials were improperly served on the plaintiff and filed publicly, causing irreparable damage to the client.

The court ordered the destruction of all unredacted materials and warned that future non-compliance with these rules could result in sanctions against counsel.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff, a former articling student of the defendants, alleged the defendants made defamatory statements about her failure to disclose official law school transcripts.

The court found that the plaintiff was aware of the allegedly defamatory statements by 2012 at the latest, during prior tribunal proceedings.

As the action was commenced in 2018, well beyond the two-year limitation period, and the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence rebutting the presumption of discoverability, the court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action.

The moving party defendant sought to set aside default foreclosure judgments obtained by the plaintiffs in 2014 regarding three properties.

The defendant argued he had an oral agreement with the plaintiffs not to proceed with the actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant's evidence of an oral agreement lacked credibility, the motion was not brought with reasonable promptness, and the defendant lacked a plausible excuse for the delay or an arguable defence on the merits.

The creditor moved without notice for an order of substituted service of its notice of motion, seeking a contempt order against the debtor.

The debtor had a documented history of evading service in the proceeding.

The court granted the order for substituted service, finding a consistent pattern of evasion and certainty of the debtor's address, which made it likely the notice would come to her attention.

The court emphasized the quasi-criminal nature of contempt motions, requiring close scrutiny and considering substituted service as a last resort, but found it justified in this case.

Costs were fixed at $3,500 for the creditor.

The self-represented plaintiff requested that the action be included in the Civil Case Management Pilot-One Judge Model.

The application was denied because the pilot project requires the consent of all parties, and the defendants confirmed they did not consent.

The court noted the parties could request case management under Rule 77 following the disposition of the defendants' upcoming motions to strike.

The clients brought a motion opposing the confirmation of an assessment officer's report regarding legal fees.

They alleged numerous errors, including procedural unfairness, misapprehension of facts, and application of wrong legal principles, arguing that no fees should be awarded.

The solicitors argued for deference to the assessment officer's findings, including credibility.

The court dismissed the clients' motion, finding no basis to set aside the assessment officer's decision, which had reduced the solicitors' fees from an initial amount to a confirmed sum plus costs.

The court confirmed the assessment officer's report and awarded the solicitors additional costs.

Class counsel moved for an order approving the form and content of the notice of certification and a litigation timetable in a class proceeding concerning former residents of Ontario Training Schools.

The defendant consented to both orders.

The court approved the litigation timetable and the notice of certification, subject to specific modifications regarding the publication list and the development of balanced training materials for independent legal advice providers.

The court emphasized the need for clear, balanced advice on opting out.

The plaintiff sought $5 million from the City of Ottawa for its alleged failure to prevent an unnamed person from posting defamatory accusations against him on telephone poles.

The court, acting on a requisition from the Registrar's Office following a request from the defendant, reviewed the statement of claim under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found no tenable allegations against the City of Ottawa, nor any basis for its responsibility for the actions of others.

Despite the plaintiff's submissions arguing the City's duty to protect citizens and prevent crime, the action was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to produce certain documents for inspection and to provide particulars of its statement of claim regarding an equipment lease for a helicopter.

The Master partially granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to produce written demands for payment if they exist, and to provide particulars of the date and price of the helicopter's sale to allow the defendant to plead a defence of set-off.

The balance of the requests were dismissed as they sought non-specific documents or evidence rather than material facts necessary for pleading.

The moving party defendants, an expert witness and his appraisal company, sought summary judgment to dismiss a professional negligence claim brought by their former clients, the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs alleged the expert breached his duties during a prior trial, resulting in an unfavourable valuation of their shares.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the negligence claim, holding that the absolute immunity afforded to witnesses extends to a party's own expert witness.

However, the court declined to grant summary judgment on the moving parties' counterclaim for unpaid invoices, finding that the plaintiffs' allegations of breach of contract and negligence raised triable issues that could serve as a defence to the claim for fees.

The court, on its own initiative, considered dismissing the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure for being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Despite notice being given to the plaintiff, no written submissions were received within the prescribed 15-day period.

Consequently, the action was dismissed.

The applicants appealed a Master's order dismissing their action.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the appeal was brought in the wrong court, as appeals from a case management master's final order lie to the Divisional Court.

The court also determined that Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for dismissal of vexatious or frivolous proceedings, does not apply to appeals.

The appeal was effectively dismissed due to procedural impropriety.

A law firm brought an application under section 23 of the Solicitors Act seeking an order for the payment of outstanding legal accounts.

The client had not challenged the validity or effect of the retainer agreement itself, but simply had not paid the accounts.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, holding that sections 23 and 24 of the Act do not permit a solicitor to bypass the standard assessment process to collect unpaid accounts where the underlying retainer agreement is not in dispute.

The self-represented plaintiff was invited to provide written submissions explaining why her action should not be dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff’s submissions challenged earlier tribunal proceedings and alleged bias and misconduct by various participants, including tribunal adjudicators, opposing counsel, and defendants.

The court found that the action attempted to re‑litigate matters previously determined by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and sought relief that no reasonable litigant could expect to obtain.

The court also noted ongoing attacks against counsel and tribunal officials as further indicators of vexatious litigation.

Concluding that the proceeding bore the hallmarks of a vexatious claim, the court dismissed the action.

The defendants requested that the court invoke Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to address a statement of claim alleged to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The claim asserted numerous tort allegations and Charter breaches arising from events previously litigated before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The court found that the action appeared to attempt to re‑litigate issues already determined by the tribunal and displayed hallmarks of vexatious litigation.

The court directed the registrar to issue notice under Rule 2.1 that the action may be dismissed and ordered the proceeding stayed pending the outcome of the Rule 2.1 written process.

The plaintiff brought a motion to dismiss or quash a third party appeal from interlocutory orders of a Master concerning timelines and procedures for a protection motion relating to alleged trade secret documents.

The third party sought to set aside the Master’s orders and refer its protection motion to a judge.

The court held that the Master acted within jurisdiction, that the orders were procedural and interlocutory, and that the appeal was brought in the wrong forum and outside prescribed timelines.

Applying principles of court openness and the test for confidentiality orders from Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada, the court found no evidentiary basis for the requested protection.

The plaintiff’s motion was granted, the third party’s motion dismissed, and an interim without prejudice confidentiality order was issued to facilitate continued production pending determination of the protection motion.

The applicant property owner sought a declaration allowing her to remove a fence and erect locked gates on a right of way located on her property, which was used by the respondent embassy to access its rear parking lot.

The court found that the issue of the fence was res judicata due to a 1992 court order mandating its installation.

Furthermore, applying the principles of easement law, the court held that erecting locked gates would substantially interfere with the respondent's unimpeded access to its property, which had been established by historical use and previous agreements.

The application was dismissed.

A second mortgagee brought an application under s. 39(1) of the Mortgages Act seeking leave to sell property under power of sale without complying with the statutory notice requirements under s. 31.

The applicant had already entered into an agreement of purchase and sale before issuing the required notice of sale and sought to abridge the mortgagor’s 35‑day redemption period.

The court held that the mortgagee must strictly comply with the statutory notice requirements and that s. 39 should not be used to cure the mortgagee’s own failure to comply with the Act.

The evidence filed was also unreliable and raised questions about the alleged lack of equity in the property.

The application was dismissed.

In a contempt proceeding arising within complex commercial litigation involving egg producers, the court addressed scheduling and procedural directions for the penalty and costs phase following a prior finding of contempt.

The responding party sought to finalize penalty before an upcoming appeal to avoid fragmented appellate proceedings.

The court considered appellate guidance discouraging fragmented appeals where the contempt disposition had not yet been completed.

The court scheduled the penalty hearing and established timelines for service of supplementary materials and potential intervention motions under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Directions were also provided regarding the possibility of viva voce evidence at the penalty hearing.