Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to reflect the appointment of a litigation guardian and for a finding of contempt against the defendants for failing to attend discoveries.

The defendants sought an adjournment of the motion pending the hearing of a cross-motion to stay the action due to the plaintiffs' alleged lack of capacity and a pending guardianship application.

The court granted the adjournment and stayed the motion to amend, finding that the genuine issues concerning the plaintiffs' capacity and the suitability of the proposed litigation guardian needed to be determined first.

The plaintiffs withdrew their contempt request.

The plaintiff commenced an action against several lawyers who had represented respondents in his previous, unsuccessful application for judicial review.

The plaintiff alleged the lawyers engaged in deceitful tactics and sought damages.

One of the defendants requested the action be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the action was a collateral attack on the previous decision and that the allegations against opposing counsel disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The action was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.

The defendants brought a motion to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim to add a $100,000 defamation claim just days before a scheduled simplified procedure trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to adequately explain their delay in seeking the amendment.

The court held that adding a defamation claim would materially alter the factual framework, require further discovery, cause significant delay, and potentially push the trial beyond the five-day limit for simplified procedure actions, resulting in non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a settlement after the plaintiff's counsel communicated acceptance of an offer to settle, which the plaintiff subsequently rescinded.

The court established a timetable for the motion to enforce the settlement and noted that the plaintiff's counsel intended to bring a motion to be removed as solicitor of record.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside previous orders dismissing his request for a Mareva injunction and sought a Mareva injunction and an order for the preservation of property.

The dispute arose from an informal loan agreement where the plaintiff advanced funds in Chinese currency in exchange for repayment in Canadian dollars.

The court set aside the previous orders based on new evidence obtained during cross-examinations, where the defendant admitted owing $2,220,000.

The court found a strong prima facie case and a real risk of asset dissipation given the impending sale of the defendant's home.

The Mareva injunction was granted subject to the plaintiff providing an undertaking as to damages, but the motion for preservation of property was dismissed.

The applicant brought an application under the Evidence Act and Canada Evidence Act to compel the respondent to attend an examination for a proceeding in the United States District Court.

The court ordered the respondent to attend the examination via videoconference, conditional upon the applicant delivering $7,500 in attendance money and a protective order.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the respondent in the fixed amount of $1,000.

The plaintiffs sought clarification of an endorsement that partially approved a $10,000,000 medical malpractice settlement on behalf of a minor.

The court convened a case conference and agreed to minor edits regarding the names of medical professionals and the exact amount of proposed counsel fees.

The court also clarified the net recovery amount for the minor's parents, which could be used for a property purchase, and the distribution of the structured and non-structured settlement funds.

The court remained seized of the matter pending the final disposition of the proposed counsel fee and the application for guardianship of property.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment regarding a defaulted commercial loan and mortgage.

The defendants failed to appear and relied on Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA), claiming indigenous status and that the land was unceded.

The court found these defences to be nonsense, noting the defendants received the funds and defaulted on their obligations.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the debt owing, possession of the property, and substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought an action for mortgage default against the defendants.

The defendants filed a counterclaim using organized pseudo-legal commercial arguments (OPCA), naming the provincial and federal Crowns, and issued summonses to the Chief Justice of Canada and a former registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The court dismissed the counterclaim under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court also quashed the summonses to witness as an abuse of process and adjourned the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to allow the defendants to file responding material.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for defamation and the dismissal of the defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, the plaintiff sought costs.

The plaintiff had made multiple offers to settle for significantly less than the $50,000 damages awarded at trial.

The court considered the offers to settle, the principles of proportionality, and the statutory provisions regarding costs for anti-SLAPP motions.

The court fixed costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff at $50,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiffs sought damages for nuisance and statutory liability under the Municipal Act, 2001, alleging property damage from increased truck traffic.

Both parties brought competing summary judgment motions.

The court found the plaintiffs' claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as it was discovered in February 2009, making the January 2018 action outside the two-year limitation period.

The court rejected the application of the ten-year Real Property Limitation Act and the "rolling" cause of action.

Additionally, the court held that the statutory duty of care under s. 44 of the Municipal Act, 2001, was owed to the travelling public, not adjoining landowners.

Consequently, the defendant municipality's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiffs' motion was dismissed.

The defendant driver moved for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a pedestrian knock-down collision.

The moving party argued that liability could be determined on the written record without a mini‑trial.

The court held that material credibility conflicts between the plaintiff, the defendant, and an independent witness created genuine issues requiring oral testimony.

Given the conflicting evidence, the statutory burden on drivers in pedestrian collisions under the Highway Traffic Act, and the existence of a jury notice, the court concluded that summary judgment or a mini‑trial would not be proportionate.

The motion was dismissed and the action allowed to proceed to trial.

The plaintiffs moved for default judgment against an automotive repair company after it failed to defend an action alleging negligent and fraudulent vehicle repairs.

Following a collision, the defendant body shop invoiced substantial repair costs but forensic inspection later revealed numerous dangerous irregularities, including removal of airbags and severe structural deficiencies.

The court held that the defendant breached its duty of care to the insured vehicle owner and the insurers who paid for the repairs and related expenses.

Compensatory damages were awarded for towing, repair payments, rental costs, investigative expenses, and the insurer’s purchase of the vehicle to conduct forensic analysis.

Given the egregious and dangerous nature of the misconduct, the court also awarded significant punitive damages and full indemnity costs.

Following a prior decision enforcing a settlement agreement and dismissing the plaintiffs’ action against certain defendants, the court determined costs of the motion to enforce settlement.

The court found the plaintiffs’ attempts to resile from the settlement led to unnecessary litigation.

Applying the discretionary factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considering a prior costs offer, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $7,500 payable to the moving defendant.

The court also raised the possibility of a solicitor reimbursement order under Rule 57.07(1)(b) if the lawyer’s conduct contributed to the unnecessary litigation.

Enforcement of the costs award against the plaintiffs was stayed pending consideration of whether their lawyer should reimburse them.

Following the dismissal of a copyright infringement action on summary judgment, the successful corporate defendants sought costs of the motions and the broader action.

The self‑represented plaintiff, who was also a qualified lawyer, argued that no costs should be awarded due to his modest means and good faith prosecution of the claim.

The court applied the normative Ontario approach that costs follow the event and are generally awarded on a partial indemnity basis under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that financial hardship was not established and that the plaintiff, as an experienced lawyer, understood the risks of adverse costs.

Applying reasonableness and proportionality principles, the court fixed costs at $50,000 for one defendant and $70,000 for the other.

The moving defendants sought judgment enforcing an alleged oral settlement reached during a pre‑trial conference.

The responding plaintiffs disputed that a binding settlement had been made and argued that communications from the pre‑trial could not be relied upon due to settlement privilege and Rule 50.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that communications made during settlement discussions, including those occurring at a pre‑trial conference, may be admitted where necessary to prove the existence or terms of a settlement agreement.

Based on uncontradicted affidavit evidence from counsel, the court found that the plaintiffs made an offer to dismiss the action against the moving defendants without costs and that the offer was accepted.

The court concluded a valid settlement existed and exercised its discretion to enforce it.

The plaintiff alleged copyright infringement relating to the distribution and online listing of his book.

The defendants moved for summary judgment under Rule 20, arguing there was no evidence they had printed, distributed, or sold infringing copies and that any online listing occurred outside Canada.

The court held that the evidentiary record established the defendants never possessed or sold copies of the book and that the online listing did not create a sufficient connection to Canada to engage the Copyright Act.

The court also found no evidence supporting claims of secondary infringement or infringement of moral rights.

As there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

During a civil jury trial, the defendants sought to read portions of the plaintiff’s examination for discovery into evidence pursuant to Rule 31.11(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff objected, arguing that the rule in Browne v. Dunn required the defendants to first put the evidence to the plaintiff during cross‑examination at trial.

The court held that Rule 31.11 permits a party to read discovery evidence into the record as admissions provided it is not used for impeachment purposes.

Balancing fairness considerations and the trial context, including the presence of a jury, the court allowed the defendants to read in the proposed excerpts.

The court also indicated that the plaintiff could seek leave to provide reply evidence if the read‑ins raised issues that required a response.

In a proposed class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the moving party brought an omnibus motion seeking multiple procedural and evidentiary orders affecting the record for a certification motion.

Most of the relief sought was either abandoned or dismissed, with only minor unopposed amendments granted.

The court held that the respondents were entitled to costs because the moving party was largely unsuccessful.

Although the respondents sought over $30,000 including substantial indemnity costs for abandoned claims, the court rejected punitive costs and applied the partial indemnity scale.

A proportionate costs award of $20,000 all-inclusive was ordered.

A solicitor brought a motion to strike portions of a client’s affidavit filed in opposition to confirmation of a Report and Certificate of Assessment under the Solicitors Act.

The solicitor argued that the affidavit improperly raised issues about the retainer that should not be revisited after the assessment hearing and that the confirmation motion was analogous to an appeal limited to the record before the assessment officer.

The court found that the moving party had not identified any statutory or Rules of Civil Procedure authority permitting the striking of the affidavit based solely on its content.

Questions regarding the admissibility of the affidavit and the permissible scope of evidence on the confirmation motion were matters for the judge presiding over that hearing.

The motion was adjourned to be determined by the judge hearing the confirmation motion, with costs left to that judge’s discretion.