Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCJ

The applicant sought to join an application for directions regarding the interpretation of a will and the sale of a cottage with an application to pass estate accounts.

The court dismissed the request for joinder, finding that the issues were not interwoven, there was no risk of inconsistent findings, and joining the straightforward directions application with the complex and contested passing of accounts would cause undue delay and prejudice to the estate.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act (s. 137.1) and for summary judgment.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for allegedly making a false police report about a threatening phone call.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-motion to file late evidence, finding the plaintiff had ample opportunity to prepare.

The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the action, holding that reporting a crime to the police is an expression in the public interest.

The plaintiff failed to show the suit had substantial merit or that the defendant lacked valid defences, as the defendant established qualified privilege and truth.

Following a trial where the plaintiff succeeded in its construction lien and damages claims, the court determined the costs and interest payable.

The court found the defendant's settlement efforts unreasonable, noting she rejected a settlement conference recommendation and a reasonable Rule 49 offer from the plaintiff.

Applying the principles of proportionality and the factors under Rule 57.01, the court awarded the plaintiff costs of $135,000, representing a reduction from the $186,044.09 claimed, along with prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

The plaintiff sued the lawyers who represented his former employer in a wrongful dismissal action and related tribunal proceedings, alleging they acted unprofessionally, defamed him, and prepared a false affidavit.

The defendant lawyers brought a motion to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, finding that all of the plaintiff's claims were barred by the doctrine of absolute privilege, which protects words spoken or written by lawyers in preparation for court or tribunal proceedings, even if alleged to be false or malicious.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application, the self-represented respondents sought costs of $33,320.25.

The applicants argued that the respondents were not entitled to costs because they failed to demonstrate an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity, as required by Girao v. Cunningham.

The court held that while the respondents did not prove an opportunity cost, they were still entitled to a modest costs award to incentivize reasonable settlement positions.

The court awarded the respondents partial indemnity costs fixed at $8,500.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiff for a status hearing to prevent the action from being dismissed for delay, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs against the only opposing defendant.

The court found that while the defendant's opposition was not unreasonable, he was not insulated from costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $6,000 in costs, payable in the cause, reflecting the additional expense incurred due to the defendant's opposition.

The self-represented plaintiff, citing a disability, requested several accommodations to proceed with her action, including the recusal of the case management judge, the appointment of an out-of-province judge, and state-funded legal counsel.

The defendants argued these requests were substantive remedies requiring a formal motion.

The case management judge agreed, finding that the requested accommodations could not be granted informally and directed the plaintiff to bring a formal motion for recusal, setting a timetable for the exchange of materials.

The plaintiff sued a real estate brokerage, its realtors, and its franchisor (RE/MAX Ontario) along with the franchisor's officers, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence related to the sale of his properties.

The franchisor and its officers brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them, which were based solely on vicarious liability and piercing the corporate veil.

The court granted the motion, finding no evidence of an employer/employee or principal/agent relationship between the franchisor and franchisee, nor any policy reasons to impose vicarious liability based on control.

The court also found no evidence to support piercing the corporate veil or holding the corporate officers personally liable.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with LawPRO, the professional liability insurer for the self-represented defendant lawyer.

The defendant objected to the settlement, arguing he was entitled to costs for defending the action.

The court found that the LawPRO insurance policy clearly provided the insurer with the contractual right to settle the claim without the insured's consent.

The plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement was granted, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the action with costs was dismissed.

The applicant, a self-represented family lawyer, brought a motion to remove Epstein Cole LLP as solicitors of record for his ex-wife in their family law dispute.

He argued that lawyers from the firm would be called as witnesses regarding their alleged interference with his livelihood and application for judicial appointment, and that they harboured animus toward him creating a conflict of interest.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no real likelihood that the lawyers would be called as witnesses, no evidence of untoward animus, and that removing the respondent's counsel of choice would cause her significant prejudice.

The creditor, RZCD Law Firm LLP, brought a motion seeking to enforce a notice of garnishment against the garnishee, IBM Canada Ltd., for an outstanding debt owed by the debtor, Victor Brian Choo-Shee-Nam.

The creditor asserted that the garnishee failed to remit payments as directed and did not serve a garnishee's statement.

The garnishee argued that the original notice of garnishment did not apply to the debtor's subsequent period of re-employment and that garnishment proceedings were stayed by a consumer proposal.

The court dismissed the creditor's motion, finding that the garnishee was not obligated to file a garnishee's statement within 10 days as it initially remitted payments, nor was it required to provide notification when the debtor's employment ended.

Crucially, the court held that the original notice of garnishment did not apply to the debtor's re-employment period due to Rule 60.08(13)(b), which excludes debts arising from employment commencing after the notice is served.

The defendants, KPMG, Canaccord Genuity Corp., and Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss actions initiated by 1511419 Ontario Inc. (formerly The Cash Store Financial Services Inc.) on the grounds that the claims were statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The actions related to professional services provided concerning a January 2012 loan purchase and note offering.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the discoverability of the claims, given the complex factual pattern, allegations of professional negligence, and the limited evidentiary record presented.

The plaintiff and defendants both brought unsuccessful motions for summary judgment in an action for solicitor negligence arising from a medical negligence claim.

The court determined the costs for both motions.

The defendants were awarded $18,196.23 in costs for the plaintiff's motion, with expert disbursements of $9,570 ordered as costs in the cause.

The plaintiff was awarded $12,161.56 in costs for the defendants' motion, with the court reducing the plaintiff's claimed fees to reflect the fair and reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

This motion sought an order for security for costs against the plaintiff, an Ontario corporation, in a $20 million lawyer's negligence claim.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs, citing a previous decision where the same plaintiff was ordered to post security and its sole shareholder failed to establish impecuniosity.

The court applied the two-step inquiry under Rule 56.01, finding that the defendants had good reason to believe the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate ample assets or impecuniosity, and its claim was not found to have a "good chance of success." The motion was granted, ordering the plaintiff to post security for costs totaling $149,000 in three installments, and staying the proceeding until the first installment was posted.

The insured applied for a declaration that his automobile insurer owed him a defence and indemnity after denying coverage on the basis that he permitted an unauthorized driver to operate his vehicle contrary to statutory condition 4(1) under O. Reg. 777/93 and the Ontario Automobile Policy.

The driver, the insured’s girlfriend, possessed only a G1 licence and was involved in a collision while driving alone on a 400‑series highway.

The court held that the proper test was whether the insured took reasonable and prudent precautions to ensure the statutory condition was not contravened.

Given that the insured had seen the driver produce a licence for identification and had previously ridden with her while she drove, and given the visual similarity between G1 and full licences, the insured acted reasonably and was not wilfully blind.

The insurer therefore remained obligated to provide defence and indemnity.

The defendant employer appealed a master's decision dismissing its motion for a further and better affidavit of documents in a wrongful dismissal action.

The employer sought production of the plaintiff employee’s personal email messages and cell phone records to support an after-acquired cause defence alleging she conducted real estate business during working hours.

The court held that the master correctly applied the proportionality principle under Rule 29.2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the requested production would require review of thousands of emails and impose disproportionate time and cost relative to the issues in dispute.

The court also noted the marginal relevance of personal email records to alleged misuse of the employer’s email system.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss an application challenging the constitutionality of public funding for Ontario Catholic separate schools.

The applicant argued that such funding violated Charter freedoms and equality rights and sought declarations eliminating or reducing funding for Catholic schools.

The court held that the applicant lacked private interest standing as a taxpayer and declined to grant public interest standing.

Binding Supreme Court of Canada and Court of Appeal jurisprudence confirmed that funding for Catholic separate schools is constitutionally protected under the Constitution Act, 1867 and immune from Charter scrutiny.

The application was dismissed for lack of standing and lack of any reasonable prospect of success.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and other torts arising from criminal charges related to a 1992 arson.

The court found the 63-page statement of claim to be prolix, repetitive, argumentative, and replete with evidence, violating the rules of pleading.

The court struck the entire statement of claim but granted the plaintiffs 60 days leave to amend, providing detailed guidance on how to properly plead the causes of action.

The court declined to strike the negligent investigation claims without leave to amend, noting the law in this area is unsettled.

The applicant sought dependant support from the estate of his late common-law spouse.

Although he proved he was a dependant, his claim was ultimately dismissed because the respondent executor distributed all estate assets before the application was commenced and raised a limitation period defence late in the proceedings.

The respondent sought costs of $127,872.01.

The court awarded costs to the respondent but reduced the fees by 50% because the respondent's failure to make timely disclosure about the lack of estate assets unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

Self-represented plaintiffs sought costs after successfully defending a summary judgment motion.

They claimed compensation for their own time spent litigating as well as disbursements and legal advice obtained from counsel.

The court applied the principles governing costs for self-represented litigants, requiring proof of opportunity cost demonstrating that remunerative activity was foregone.

As no evidence of lost income or opportunities was provided, the court declined to award costs for the litigants’ personal time.

However, the court allowed recovery of actual out-of-pocket legal expenses and disbursements and declined to set off earlier reserved costs due to defence counsel’s disregard of page limits imposed by the court.