Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment on an unliquidated claim against the defendant, her former spouse, for damages resulting from his physical and psychological abuse during their marriage.

The defendant was noted in default and did not participate in the litigation.

The court assessed general damages, aggravated damages, and damages for lost earning capacity, along with an OHIP subrogated claim and pre-judgment interest.

The court awarded the plaintiff $75,000 for general damages, $25,000 for aggravated damages, and $15,000 for loss of earning capacity, noting the evolving understanding of intimate partner violence in assessing aggravated damages.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d), arguing there was good reason to believe the plaintiff corporation had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The defendant relied on an unsatisfied foreign arbitral award and the plaintiff's delay in paying a previous costs order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the foreign award was likely statute-barred in Ontario and the payment of the previous costs order demonstrated an ability to pay, not an inability.

The court also noted the defendant's unexplained 28-month delay in bringing the motion would have been fatal regardless.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking $300,000 in total for the main action and a related counterclaim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had recently paid over $150,000 in outstanding costs orders, the related counterclaim did not seek the same relief, and the action was neither frivolous nor vexatious.

Furthermore, the defendants failed to establish that the plaintiffs had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The plaintiff, a trim carpenter, brought a construction lien and breach of contract action against the general contractor and the homeowner for unpaid work on a residential project.

The court found that the general contractor wrongfully repudiated the oral subcontract by failing to pay the plaintiff and denying him access to the site.

The court also found that the general contractor made a pre-contractual misrepresentation that formed a collateral warranty, causing the contract price to revert to its original higher amount when the condition was breached.

The plaintiff was awarded a lien of $16,225, for which both defendants were jointly and severally liable, and $7,200 in breach of contract damages against the general contractor.

The parties made a consent request to adjourn the pretrial and fixed trial dates in a solicitor's negligence action.

The request was based on a recent order allowing the defendants to amend their Statement of Defence.

The court noted that the plaintiff had failed to serve an expert report on the standard of care despite the passage of eight years and a consent timetable.

The court dismissed the request, holding that fixed trial dates in Toronto are only adjourned in exceptional circumstances and that breaching timetabling orders does not justify an adjournment.

A case conference was held to establish a timetable for three actions arising from a water loss incident.

The moving party confirmed it owned the water heater and did not retain maintenance services, leading the responding parties to seek instructions to dismiss the action against the rental and maintenance companies.

The parties agreed to a schedule for discoveries and to an order that the three actions be tried together.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded the full amount of its construction lien and breach of contract claim ($73,767.26), the court determined costs and interest.

The plaintiff had made an offer to settle for $55,000, which the defendant ignored.

The court found the defendant's conduct throughout the litigation to be obstinate, provocative, and designed to delay.

Despite the costs claimed ($123,565.03) being disproportionate to the judgment amount, the court awarded $120,000 for the reference and $15,000 for a motion to strike on a substantial indemnity basis, emphasizing that proportionality should not reward unreasonable conduct.

Prejudgment interest was set at 1% and post-judgment at 2%.

The plaintiff brought an action against multiple defendants, including lawyers Francois Lepage and Bernier Beaudry, who represented CLE Capital Inc. in a failed equipment purchase transaction involving the plaintiff.

Lepage and Beaudry moved for summary judgment, arguing the statement of claim failed to disclose a valid cause of action against them and that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff alleged the lawyers stalled the transaction and sought "legal fees and punitive damages." The court found that the lawyers, acting for the seller, did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff (the buyer).

Additionally, the plaintiff suffered no compensable loss, and the claim for punitive damages was unsustainable.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against the moving parties.

Kaufman LLP, a defendant law firm, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for professional negligence.

The plaintiff alleged that Kaufman LLP failed to secure a binding agreement for a share purchase.

Kaufman LLP argued the claim was statute-barred, lacked damages, was duplicative, and was an impermissible attack on prior insolvency orders.

The court found that Kaufman LLP did not provide sufficient evidence to address the plaintiff's allegations and failed to meet its burden to establish no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the plaintiff was presumptively entitled to costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence and counterclaim for failing to comply with trial directions to deliver affidavits for evidence in chief.

The defendant, who was self-represented after his counsel was removed, brought a motion to adjourn the trial to retain new counsel.

The court found the defendant's non-compliance was deliberate, part of a delay strategy, and showed a profound lack of interest in the proceedings.

Applying the test for striking pleadings, the court struck the defendant's set-off and counterclaim but allowed the defence to stand so the defendant could cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses.

The motion to adjourn was dismissed.

The plaintiff moved to strike the defendant's jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action due to trial delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The action had been set down for trial in August 2018 and was scheduled for a four-week jury trial in March 2021.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendant's prima facie entitlement to a jury trial must yield to the overriding interests of justice, which include the timely resolution of civil disputes.

Given the suspension of civil jury trials in Ottawa and the capacity for in-court non-jury matters, justice would be better served by discharging the jury.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim under Rule 60.12, alleging non-compliance with trial management directions to deliver a Scott Schedule.

The court found that while the defendants' Scott Schedule was imperfect, they had made a good faith effort to comply and offered to revise it expeditiously upon retaining new counsel.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that striking pleadings is a draconian measure reserved for repeated and blatant disregard of court orders.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants because the plaintiff unreasonably forced the motion and ignored a favourable offer to settle.

The self-represented plaintiff moved for leave to amend his statement of claim to add several new causes of action and for further documentary production from the defendant bank.

The court denied most of the proposed amendments, finding them to be statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, or untenable based on prior court rulings.

However, the court allowed amendments related to bad faith referencing, intentional interference with economic relations, breach of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court also ordered the defendant to produce certain documents related to the allowed claims, while denying production of other requested documents.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

The plaintiff contractor brought a construction lien action for unpaid invoices relating to the installation of epoxy flooring at a commercial property.

The defendant owner counterclaimed for the cost of replacing the floor, alleging the contractor installed the wrong product and left deficiencies.

The court found that the owner fundamentally breached the contract by unilaterally ordering a stop to the work and hiring a replacement contractor without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to correct deficiencies.

Although the plaintiff had installed an unspecified, inferior epoxy product, this breach was rendered immaterial by the owner's prior repudiation.

The court awarded the plaintiff its unpaid invoices and extras, subject to a quantum meruit set-off for the cost difference between the specified and installed epoxy products.

The owner's counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement after the defendant failed to pay the required interest on the settlement amount.

The settlement included a provision that failure to cure a default within 10 days would result in a consent judgment for the full original lien claim of $611,061.10, less any principal paid.

The defendant argued for relief from forfeiture, claiming the penalty was unconscionable.

The court rejected this argument, finding the consent judgment was not disproportionate to the original claim and that the defendant had not been taken advantage of.

The motion was granted, and judgment was ordered for the net amount of $286,061.10.

The court determined the appropriate quantum of costs following a motion where the successful party sought partial indemnity costs.

The responding party challenged the hourly rate claimed, time billed for preparation of an affidavit, and charges related to cross-examinations that did not proceed.

The court accepted the challenges regarding the hourly rate and certain cross‑examination-related charges but rejected the challenge to the affidavit preparation time, finding it necessary for the motion.

Costs were recalculated based on a reduced hourly rate and adjusted disbursements.

The court ordered payment of revised costs inclusive of disbursements.

The defendant brought a motion seeking to set aside a noting of default after failing to deliver a statement of defence in time.

The court applied the factors governing the exercise of discretion under Rule 19 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including intention to defend, explanation for delay, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court found credible evidence that the defendant intended to defend the claim, noting the earlier filing of a Notice of Intent to Defend and subsequent efforts to retain counsel.

Although the explanation for delay in retaining counsel lacked detail, the court held the delay was not inordinate and the motion was brought with reasonable dispatch.

As no prejudice to the plaintiff was demonstrated, the court set aside the noting of default.

Following a successful motion by non-parties to set aside an ex parte Anton Piller order, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful non-parties sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing that the order should never have been obtained and that their legal expenses were reasonable given the urgency and intrusiveness of the order.

The applicants opposed substantial indemnity costs and argued that the matter had been overworked and that no misconduct justified enhanced costs.

The court held that although the Anton Piller order had been set aside, there was no intentional or improper conduct in obtaining the ex parte order that would justify substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were therefore awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

A contractor sought to enforce lien and related claims against a land vendor after a hotel purchaser defaulted on payment for servicing work on the parcel to be sold.

The court held the vendor was not an owner within sections 1.1 or 18 of the Construction Lien Act for the impugned work, finding no request, privity, consent, or joint/common ownership status that would ground liability.

Claims in unjust enrichment and quantum meruit were rejected because the deprivation flowed from the purchaser’s contractual breach and no corresponding enrichment by the vendor was established.

The court found the contractor’s proven damages remained those already reflected in judgments against the purchaser.

The action was dismissed with costs, but the contractor was found entitled to a lien against the purchaser’s $25,000 deposit held by the vendor.

The moving parties sought costs on a full indemnity basis following a motion involving a certificate of pending litigation, arguing that the opposing party engaged in material non‑disclosure on an ex parte motion and breached the deemed undertaking rule.

The responding party argued that any non‑disclosure was inadvertent and that the alleged breaches were not sufficiently serious to justify substantial or full indemnity costs.

The court reiterated that substantial indemnity costs are reserved for rare and exceptional cases involving reprehensible conduct.

Finding that the conduct did not meet that threshold, the court declined to award full indemnity costs.

Instead, the moving parties were awarded partial indemnity costs in the amount reflected in their bill of costs.