Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The plaintiff, Chicago Title Insurance Co., sought compliance with a prior order requiring the defendants, Lukas Gabor and Katarina Rybarova, to attend judgment debtor examinations.

After initial non-attendance, only Ms. Rybarova appeared and provided undertakings, some of which remain outstanding.

Mr. Gabor subsequently attended but then made an assignment into bankruptcy, resulting in a stay of proceedings against him.

The court adjourned the motion sine die as against Mr. Gabor and scheduled a case conference with Ms. Rybarova to address outstanding undertakings and the issue of costs.

The defendant, Floating Lodges of Sioux Narrows Inc., brought a motion for default judgment against the third party, Eric Schwartz, seeking contribution and indemnity.

This motion followed a settlement between the plaintiffs and Floating Lodges for a personal injury claim.

The third party had been noted in default for failing to file a defence.

The court, having previously dismissed a similar motion for insufficient evidence, reviewed a more comprehensive record detailing the plaintiff's injuries, expenses, and the third party's alleged negligence and contractual indemnity.

The court found the settlement amount reasonable and granted default judgment against the third party for $175,000.00 plus $10,000.00 in costs.

The parties sought to settle the judgment following a jury trial in a personal injury action.

They disagreed on the wording of a consent reduction for a past loss of housekeeping award and the applicable prejudgment interest rate for non-pecuniary damages.

The court determined the wording of the order to reflect that the reduction was made pursuant to Rule 52.08 on consent.

Applying MacLeod v. Marshall, the court exercised its discretion under s. 130 of the Courts of Justice Act to reduce the prejudgment interest rate on non-pecuniary damages from the presumptive 5% under Rule 53.10 to 1.3%, finding that 5% would overcompensate the plaintiffs given historical market rates.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a vacant residential lot.

The defendant vendors had refused to close the transaction, claiming they were unable to remove outstanding writs of execution from title and treating the agreement as terminated.

The court found that the defendants failed to act in good faith to clear the title, as they could have paid the executions from the sale proceeds or paid the funds into court.

The court also found the property was unique to the plaintiffs given its location and affordability.

The plaintiffs' motion for specific performance was granted and the defendants' cross-motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a real estate broker, brought an urgent motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a pre-construction property after the defendant developer terminated the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The developer terminated the agreement upon discovering the plaintiff had submitted a false mortgage approval letter.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the plaintiff might have a triable interest in land, the property was not unique and damages would be an adequate remedy.

Crucially, the court held that the plaintiff did not come to court with clean hands, as he had tendered an admittedly false document, and thus was not entitled to equitable relief.

The defendants brought motions to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim, which alleged he was racially profiled and falsely accused of theft at a trade show.

The court dismissed the motions brought by the exhibitor and security company defendants, finding the claim disclosed potential causes of action in negligence, misrepresentation, and defamation when read generously.

The court granted the motion brought by the event organizer, striking the claim against it without leave to amend, as no reasonable cause of action was discernible.

Following a successful motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that while the self-represented plaintiff made unfounded allegations, his conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible or scandalous behaviour required for an elevated costs award.

The court awarded the defendants their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff contractor registered a construction lien for unpaid services and materials relating to a home renovation.

The defendant owners counterclaimed for overpayment, structural damage, and costs to correct deficiencies.

The court found that the owners breached the contract by engaging another contractor to perform work within the plaintiff's scope, justifying the plaintiff's termination of the contract.

However, after assessing the value of the work actually completed and allowing set-offs for deficiencies and overcharges, the court determined the plaintiff had been overpaid.

The lien claim was dismissed, and the owners were awarded nominal damages of $738.20.

The defendant, Intact Insurance, brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to comply with undertakings and answer refusals from her examination for discovery in a personal injury action.

By the time of the hearing, the undertakings had been answered, leaving only the refusals and costs in dispute.

The court ordered the plaintiff to answer questions regarding prior injuries and to produce academic records from an incomplete bookkeeping course relevant to her loss of income claim.

The request for un-redacted counsellor records was deemed premature.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against several healthcare providers and police officers regarding a psychiatric assessment hold under the Mental Health Act.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff failed to produce an expert report addressing professional negligence.

The court found that without a supportive expert report, the plaintiff had no prospect of success.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed, with costs awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff mortgagees moved for summary judgment arising from a chattel mortgage over a mobile home after the defendants defaulted on monthly payments.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the plaintiffs' entitlement to possession of the collateral and on their entitlement in principle to payment of principal, interest, and insurance amounts authorized by the mortgage.

However, material factual disputes remained regarding the number of missed payments, the date from which interest was payable on certain defaults, the amount of insurance premiums paid, and whether lot rental payments were recoverable at all.

A trial was therefore required on those disputed monetary issues.

The self‑represented plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside or vary a prior order dismissing his action against a professional regulatory body and requiring leave before bringing further steps.

He also sought ancillary relief including removal of a disciplinary notice from the regulator’s website and preservation and production of documents.

The court held that the plaintiff’s arguments improperly attempted to relitigate the merits of claims previously dismissed and that the proper avenue to challenge the earlier order was through the pending appeal.

The alleged “new evidence” relied upon had already been available and had previously been rejected as a basis to reopen related Small Claims Court proceedings.

The motion was dismissed and substantial indemnity costs were awarded due to repetitive and harassing litigation conduct.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff recovered $15,000 in damages for breach of contract, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Although the damages awarded fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, the court considered Rule 57.05(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and determined that denying costs was not appropriate in the circumstances.

The court found that expert evidence was reasonably required by both parties and that the plaintiff’s claimed disbursements and partial indemnity fees were modest and reasonable.

The defendant’s request for costs was rejected because the plaintiff had succeeded on the central issue of breach of contract.

The defendants moved under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss a civil action alleging misfeasance in public office and related claims arising from a temporary cease trade order issued by the Ontario Securities Commission.

The plaintiff alleged the order had expired and that subsequent prosecutions and regulatory proceedings were therefore unlawful.

The court held that the validity of the cease trade order had already been determined in multiple prior regulatory and criminal proceedings, including a guilty plea and unsuccessful appeals.

Applying issue estoppel and the doctrine of abuse of process, the court concluded that the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate issues already conclusively determined.

The action was dismissed with prejudice.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action due to her failure to pay five outstanding costs orders totaling over $7,700, and alternatively for delay.

The plaintiff, a law school graduate acting in person, argued she was impecunious and that the delay was justified by concurrent proceedings before the Human Rights Tribunal.

The court rejected the impecuniosity claim due to lack of evidence and found the plaintiff had flagrantly ignored court orders and failed to advance the action for over seven years.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed for both failure to pay costs and inexcusable delay.

Family members disputed entitlement to proceeds from a winning “CHEO Dream of a Lifetime Lottery” ticket and the ownership of jointly held real property.

The applicants alleged an agreement to equally share any lottery winnings or, alternatively, that the respondent made a valid gift of equal shares to his parents.

The respondent denied the existence of any enforceable agreement or completed gift and argued the applicants had no legal or equitable entitlement to the proceeds held in court.

The court found that material facts and credibility issues were in dispute and directed that the application proceed as an action with pleadings, discovery, and mediation.

Separately, the court granted partition and sale of jointly owned property under the Partition Act, finding no evidence that the applicant’s request for sale was vexatious, malicious, or oppressive.

The moving defendants sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claim against the defendant driver.

The plaintiff was a passenger in the defendant's vehicle when an oncoming vehicle crossed the centre line, creating an emergency.

The defendant steered left to avoid a collision, but the oncoming vehicle swerved back, resulting in a head-on collision.

The court applied the 'full appreciation test' and the 'agony of collision' principle, concluding that the conflicting expert evidence and the factual determination of whether the defendant's evasive action was reasonable in the circumstances required a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination under the Repair and Storage Liens Act regarding whether the respondent had a valid lien for storage fees relating to the applicant’s boat.

The applicant argued that the boat had been stored without charge, while the respondent asserted entitlement to storage fees and a lien permitting retention or sale of the boat.

The court found the boat had been stored since August 2010 and that reasonable storage fees were payable despite the absence of a formal lease.

Applying the statutory framework, the court held the respondent had a valid storage lien and could retain possession or sell the boat to satisfy the debt.

The applicant was ordered to pay accrued storage fees and costs.

The applicant sought a determination under the Repair and Storage Liens Act regarding whether the respondent had a right to a lien for storage fees on his boat.

The applicant claimed he was allowed to store the boat for free, while the respondent claimed unpaid storage fees.

The court found that the applicant stored his boat at the respondent's commercial premises and owed reasonable storage fees.

The court held the respondent was entitled to a storage lien, lifted the interlocutory injunction prohibiting the sale of the boat, and ordered the applicant to pay $8,672.00 in outstanding fees plus costs.

The applicant insurer sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend its insureds—a minor and his parents—in a civil action arising from a pellet gun shooting.

The minor had been driving a car while his friends shot pellet guns, injuring the plaintiff, and was convicted of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The parents were sued for negligent supervision.

The court held that the minor's actions fell within the policy's intentional or criminal act exclusion, relieving the insurer of the duty to defend him.

However, the court found that the negligence claims against the parents were separate and not derivative of the intentional tort, meaning the exclusion clause did not apply to them and the insurer retained a duty to defend the parents.