Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

In a constitutional compliance review arising from Robinson-Superior Treaty augmentation litigation, the moving parties challenged both the Crown's engagement process and the compensation amount set after negotiations failed.

The court held that although aspects of engagement, including late disclosure of reliance on per-capita benchmarking against a related treaty settlement, caused serious relational harm, the reviewing role required deference to a range of honourable discretionary outcomes.

Applying a sui generis review framework grounded in honour of the Crown and reconciliatory justice, the court concluded the Crown's ultimate compensation determination of $3.6 billion plus agreed costs was justified in the legal and factual context.

The court therefore declined to intervene in the compensation decision while also addressing allocation issues between federal and provincial Crown responsibility in the reasons.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the defendant for the outstanding balance on a conditional sales agreement for a vehicle.

The defendant argued she was pressured into signing the agreement by a third party and did not understand the documents due to a language barrier, raising defences of duress and non est factum.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, rejecting the duress defence as there was no evidence the dealership was aware of any pressure, and rejecting the non est factum defence due to the defendant's carelessness in signing without reading or asking questions.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The Court-Appointed Receiver brought a motion seeking approval of its activities, approval of the sale of certain farm properties, a vesting order, and a sealing order for confidential appendices.

The respondents opposed the sale, arguing the properties were sold below market value and could be severed for a higher price.

Applying the Soundair principles, the court found the Receiver acted appropriately, obtained a purchase price 128% above the appraised value, and did not act improvidently.

The court approved the sale, the Receiver's activities, and granted the sealing order to protect the market integrity of the properties.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action arising from a Ponzi scheme sought to dismiss the action and distribute funds held in trust to an individual plaintiff who had obtained a default judgment in a parallel action.

The court granted the dismissal of the class action, finding no purpose in continuing against judgment-proof defendants and no prejudice to class members.

However, the court declined to order the distribution of funds, noting it lacked jurisdiction and the order was unnecessary as the individual plaintiff already held a default judgment.

In the context of a pending summary judgment motion regarding an alleged negligent misrepresentation of intent to acquire property for a GO Train station, both parties brought motions to compel answers to questions refused during cross-examinations on affidavits.

The Master applied the principles from Ontario v. Rothmans Inc. to determine the proper scope of cross-examination.

Notably, the Master found that the defendant waived solicitor-client privilege by relying on its counsel's advice to support its defence of good faith and to allege ulterior motives by the plaintiffs.

Both parties were ordered to answer specific questions and re-attend for further cross-examination.

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order for the plaintiff to attend an independent medical examination (IME) with a physiatrist specializing in amputations.

The plaintiff, who had sustained a leg amputation, opposed the motion, arguing that their condition had not changed significantly since a previous defence medical assessment by an occupational medicine specialist, and that the request was a "do over." The court granted the motion, emphasizing the principle of fairness to allow the defendant to obtain expert evidence in a specialized area (amputation treatment) to respond to the plaintiff's physiatrist's opinion and to "level the playing field" in assessing damages.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for the production of emails protected by solicitor-client privilege, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The defendant sought $16,190 on an actual indemnity basis, noting an unaccepted offer to settle the motion for $5,775.

The court applied the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, awarding the successful defendant $12,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff accounting firm brought an action to recover unpaid professional fees for work performed for the defendants (a numbered company operating a resort lodge and its sole shareholders) in 2012 and 2013.

The defendants asserted a fixed-rate agreement but failed to present any evidence to support this claim.

The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence, which included signed engagement letters and regular invoices, establishing that work was billed at standard hourly rates.

The court found the plaintiff had proven its claim for $44,052.72, with the individual defendants personally liable for $34,939.21 of that amount based on a specific engagement letter.

Additionally, a motion for recusal brought by one of the defendants at the outset of trial, based on the judge's prior stay at the lodge and presiding over an unrelated motion, was dismissed as there was no perceived partiality or link to the current case.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend the statement of claim to add a declaration that she was a victim of crime under the Victims’ Bill of Rights, 1995 and to obtain substantial indemnity costs against the defendant who had pleaded guilty to dangerous driving.

The motion also sought summary judgment declaring the plaintiff a victim of crime and fixing costs payable by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

The court held that the proposed amendment constituted a new cause of action advanced 13 years after the accident and after the limitation period had expired, creating presumed non‑compensable prejudice to the defendant.

The court further found the evidentiary record insufficient to justify enhanced costs under the Victims’ Bill of Rights and inadequate to support the requested cost award.

The motion was therefore dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 37.14 to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing a personal injury action for delay.

The action arose from a motor vehicle accident and had been dismissed after the plaintiff failed to set the matter down for trial following mediation.

Applying the contextual approach endorsed in Scaini v. Prochnicki, the court considered the four Reid criteria, including the explanation for delay, intention to proceed, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendant.

Although the plaintiff did not fully satisfy the first and third criteria due to significant delay, the court found the delay largely attributable to counsel’s inadvertence and concluded the defendant had not suffered material prejudice.

Balancing the interests of the parties, the court set aside the registrar’s dismissal order and extended the time to set the action down for trial.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 31.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to examine three non-party medical professionals for discovery.

The underlying action involved a plaintiff who became quadriplegic after an incident in a swimming pool.

The defendant sought to examine the non-parties regarding hospital records indicating the plaintiff had stated he dove into the pool, contradicting his discovery evidence that he fell from a ladder.

The court granted the motion, finding that the non-parties had information relevant to the material issue of liability, the defendant was unable to obtain the information from the plaintiff, and it would be unfair to require the defendant to proceed to trial without examining them.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The corporate plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to permit its president, who was not a lawyer, to represent the corporation in a construction lien action and also sought to set aside a noting in default on a counterclaim.

The court held that a corporation must normally be represented by counsel and that leave for non-lawyer representation requires evidence both of financial inability to retain counsel and of the proposed representative’s ability to conduct the litigation.

The court found the evidence of financial inability inadequate and concluded the proposed representative’s conduct demonstrated he was incapable of responsibly managing complex civil litigation.

The court further held that under s. 54 of the Construction Lien Act a defendant seeking to set aside default must provide evidence of a meritorious defence.

Because no such evidence was provided, the motion to set aside the default was dismissed with prejudice.

A residential property owner brought an action against neighbouring commercial businesses alleging obstruction and misuse of a shared right-of-way and seeking damages and injunctive relief.

The defendants denied interference and counterclaimed for damages and an injunction based on alleged harassment and interference with their business operations.

The court reviewed the scope of easement rights, including the principle that a right to pass and repass does not inherently include a right to park, and considered whether commercial delivery and parking activities unreasonably interfered with other users’ rights.

The court found that certain vehicle parking and delivery practices had at times unreasonably obstructed access but that many issues had improved over time.

A limited injunction regulating parking, delivery vehicle use, and positioning of security lights and cameras was granted, while all claims for damages and the defendants’ counterclaim were dismissed.

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.

The court considered a motion under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to approve a proposed settlement involving minors.

After reviewing the materials and a confidential report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, the court expressed serious concerns about whether the proposed settlement served the minors’ best interests and about the handling of the litigation.

The court found that the existing litigation guardian, the children’s father, faced an inherent conflict of interest that affected objective decision‑making.

The court dismissed the motion for approval, ordered that the motion record and related investigative materials be sealed, and replaced the litigation guardian with the Office of the Children’s Lawyer pursuant to Rule 7.06(2).

The plaintiff helicopter services provider brought a motion for summary judgment to recover unpaid invoices under a services agreement for helicopter transportation at a remote mining exploration site.

The defendant mining company disputed portions of the invoiced charges and asserted a counterclaim alleging damages arising from the conduct of a pilot, including events affecting relations with a local community and allegedly unnecessary flight charges.

The court considered Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the “full appreciation” test from Combined Air Mechanical v. Flesch.

The court held that the factual disputes, including credibility issues and the potential application of equitable set‑off, were sufficiently intertwined with the plaintiff’s claim that they required resolution at trial.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

A lawyer sought enforcement of an indemnity agreement executed by former clients in relation to claims arising from the release of disputed trust funds.

After a third-party action was commenced against the lawyer, his professional insurer settled the claim for $100,000 and sought reimbursement under the indemnity agreement.

The respondents argued the settlement was improvident and unreasonable.

The court held that the settlement was reasonable in the circumstances, particularly given the uncertainty of a pending Rule 21 motion and the risks of continued litigation involving a multi‑million‑dollar claim.

The respondents were found jointly and severally liable to reimburse the amounts paid under the indemnity agreement.

The moving party bank sought summary judgment dismissing claims alleging that its registered mortgage formed part of a fraudulent land transaction scheme.

The plaintiffs alleged that a prior partial discharge of their charge and subsequent transfers were fraudulent and that the bank had knowledge of the fraud through its solicitors or should have conducted further inquiries.

Applying the summary judgment framework articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The record established that the bank had no actual, deemed, or constructive knowledge of fraud and was entitled to rely on the land titles register.

The plaintiffs’ failure to understand the acknowledgment authorizing the discharge and their failure to register notice of their interest for more than two years contributed to any alleged losses.

In a motor vehicle action brought by a bankrupt plaintiff, the defendant moved for a declaration that a claim for loss of future income constituted property that vested in the trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court considered conflicting authorities regarding whether damages for future income loss should be characterized as property or as income for the purposes of the Act.

Adopting the reasoning in Re Conforti, the court held that damages for future income loss are properly treated as income rather than property.

Accordingly, the claim forms part of the bankrupt’s total income under s. 68(2) of the Act rather than vesting in the trustee as property.

The defendant retailer brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a negligence and occupiers’ liability claim after a customer was struck by an ice cream container that fell while she attempted to remove stacked containers from a high freezer shelf.

The plaintiffs alleged the store negligently stacked the products and breached its duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act.

The court reviewed the modern summary judgment framework under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The evidence showed the stacking method was consistent with industry practice and did not create an unreasonable risk of harm.

The court held the incident resulted from the plaintiff’s own actions in attempting to remove the containers from above head height and dismissed the action.