Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The plaintiff sought judgment against the defendants for breach of a credit agreement and minutes of settlement, including specific pre-judgment and post-judgment interest rates.

The motion was brought without notice based on the minutes of settlement.

The court adjourned the motion, finding insufficient evidence to justify the agreed-upon interest rates (12% pre-judgment, 24% post-judgment) which deviated from statutory rates, and questioning the validity of notice given discrepancies in email addresses and the requested judgment differing from the consented draft.

The court required the plaintiff to provide further evidence, ensure proper notice, and file a complete motion record for an oral hearing.

The defendants brought a motion to impose a discovery plan in a Simplified Rules motor vehicle accident claim.

The parties disagreed on whether the plaintiff should be required to produce certain medical and employment records prior to oral examinations, and who should bear the upfront cost of obtaining them.

The court ordered the plaintiff to use her best efforts to obtain and disclose the disputed productions prior to discoveries, finding them relevant and proportionate.

The court also held that under Rule 76.03, the plaintiff is presumptively required to obtain and disclose these documents at her own expense.

The plaintiff moved to enforce a settlement agreement purportedly reached via email correspondence between counsel following a full-day mediation in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant argued the emails only represented an 'agreement to agree' and that the settlement was conditional on Board approval of an additional stock option grant, which was denied.

The court found that the parties had agreed on all essential terms and that the defendant's Board had no reasonable basis to decline the stock option grant.

The motion was granted, and the settlement agreement was ordered to be enforced.

In an action for fraud and breach of contract arising from a relationship between the plaintiff and a former escort, the parties brought motions to resolve various discovery disputes.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce notes used as an aide memoire during his examination for discovery.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to disclose documents relating to his separation agreement, finding that he had waived solicitor-client privilege by putting his state of mind regarding the transfer of funds in issue.

The defendant's request to examine the plaintiff's wife as a non-party witness was dismissed as unnecessary for the pending motion.

This decision approves two class action settlements against Furukawa and Fujikura defendants for price-fixing in the automotive wire harness systems (AWHS) industry.

The court certified the class actions for settlement purposes, finding that the requirements of the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The settlements, for $2.3 million (Furukawa) and $1,083,280 (Fujikura), were deemed fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the class, based on detailed affidavit evidence from class counsel.

The court also approved class counsel's legal fees, calculated as a 25% contingency plus disbursements and taxes, consistent with retainer agreements and prior jurisprudence.

This decision concerns the judicial approval of a class action settlement, legal fees for class counsel, and an honorarium for the representative plaintiff in a misclassification overtime class action against BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. The defendant agreed to pay $12 million for class member compensation and $500,000 for administration costs.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, falling within a zone of reasonableness established by comparable U.S. settlements.

A 25% contingency fee for class counsel and a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff were also approved.

The Superior Court of Justice approved a $26.5 million settlement in a securities class action against Penn West Petroleum Ltd. and its officers/directors.

The court emphasized the "zone of reasonableness" analysis for settlement approval, requiring class counsel to provide sufficient evidence, particularly regarding available insurance coverage, to justify the settlement amount.

Leave was granted under the Securities Act and the action was certified for settlement purposes under the Class Proceedings Act.

Class counsel's contingency fees of 33% were also approved.

The plaintiffs sought court approval to certify a class action for settlement purposes and to approve the settlement and legal fees.

The class action, limited to specific pelvic mesh products (Avaulta, Align, Ajust), was certified for settlement.

The court approved the $2.475 million settlement after class counsel provided sufficient information demonstrating its reasonableness, addressing initial judicial concerns about the lack of detail.

Legal fees of $742,500 (30% contingency) plus disbursements and taxes were also approved, consistent with the court's principled approach to class counsel compensation.

This decision approves a $35.9 million class action settlement and legal fees for a fourth class action concerning abuses in provincial "Schedule 1" facilities.

The settlement mirrors three previous approvals (Huronia, Rideau, Southwestern) and provides a claims-based compensation scheme for individuals with developmental disabilities who resided in 12 named facilities.

The court found the settlement to be fair and reasonable, particularly because the Huronia settlement, which served as the template, was reached just before trial, ensuring counsel had a comprehensive understanding of litigation risks and rewards.

The plaintiff contractor brought an action for damages alleging breach of contract or, alternatively, negligent misrepresentation arising from negotiations to renovate premises for a fitness franchise.

The plaintiff argued that the parties reached a binding agreement through meetings, draft contracts, and text messages indicating work would commence, despite the absence of a signed contract.

The defendant maintained there was never a clear acceptance of the plaintiff’s proposal and that negotiations remained conditional on financing, lease arrangements, and other unresolved terms.

The court held the plaintiff failed to establish a meeting of the minds or acceptance of the offer and found no evidence of misleading representations.

The action and the defendant’s counterclaim were both dismissed.

The plaintiff sought damages for the defendant's interference with a right-of-way over the defendant's property, which provided access to the plaintiff's parking lot.

The defendant constructed a hotel that reduced the width and height of the right-of-way, preventing front-end loader garbage collection and reducing parking capacity.

The court found the permanent structure constituted an actionable interference with the express grant of the easement.

The plaintiff was awarded $441,400 in damages for loss of rental income, reduction in property value, and costs to re-grade the parking lot.

Following an appellate ruling that set aside a trial decision and declared a trust declaration void, the court was asked to determine costs after the original trial judge retired.

The successful plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $200,000, relying on findings that the defendant had engaged in fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with a loan transaction and a trust declaration.

The defendants argued that costs should be deferred pending the disposition of a counterclaim and challenged the scale and scope of the claimed costs.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were justified given the findings of dishonest conduct but deferred determination of most pre‑trial costs because the majority related to the outstanding counterclaim.

The court fixed immediate costs of $20,500 for trial attendance and preparation of cost submissions, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

Following dismissal of an appeal concerning a municipal dispute over property use, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The respondent municipality sought substantial indemnity costs based on allegations of misconduct made by the appellant and the procedural complexity caused by the self-represented litigant.

The court held that elevated costs require reprehensible or outrageous conduct and declined to award substantial indemnity.

However, the court accepted that the appellant’s conduct significantly prolonged the litigation and increased costs.

After reducing certain disbursements and adjusting fee amounts, the court fixed partial indemnity costs payable by the appellant.

Following a prior decision granting summary judgment to the plaintiff against one defendant, the court determined the quantum of costs payable.

The plaintiff relied on a valid Rule 49 offer to settle and sought substantial indemnity costs after the offer and partial indemnity costs before it.

The court reviewed the reasonableness of the fees claimed, reduced certain hours and travel expenses, and apportioned costs to reflect that judgment was obtained only against one defendant.

Applying the appropriate indemnity scales and reductions, the court fixed the total recoverable fees, taxes, and disbursements.

A law firm sought to replace existing carriage counsel in a proposed pharmaceutical class action on the basis of unreasonable delay in bringing a certification motion.

The court held that under s. 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 it has supervisory jurisdiction to entertain a carriage transfer motion.

The court established a four-part test requiring proof that the delay is clearly unreasonable, that it causes actual prejudice to class members, that the explanation for the delay is inadequate, and that compelling certification within a fixed timeline would be unworkable or not in the class’s best interests.

Applying this test, the moving party failed to demonstrate unreasonable delay or prejudice, and the explanation for the delay was credible.

The motion to replace carriage counsel was therefore dismissed.

In a matrimonial proceeding involving a lodge business subject to a court‑appointed receivership, the respondent husband moved to remove the receiver, stay payments, and seek contempt findings against the applicant wife.

The wife cross‑applied for transfer of the property into her name and other interim relief including support.

The court held that removal of a receiver requires strong evidence of bad faith or misconduct and found no basis to discharge the receiver despite disputes over expenditures and alleged bias.

The court declined to transfer ownership of the property or make certain enforcement orders but granted modest interim spousal support and ordered financial disclosure.

Several ancillary requests, including contempt findings and other relief, were denied pending trial.

In a wrongful dismissal action under Rule 76, the plaintiff sought additional damages after termination without cause and challenged whether a binding settlement had been reached on termination entitlements.

Applying the objective observer test to the parties’ email exchanges and post-termination conduct, the court found the parties negotiated and finalized a settlement package including notice pay, commissions, extended benefits, and temporary office use.

The court held the employee’s acknowledgment that all terms were agreed, together with acceptance of the negotiated package, confirmed a complete settlement.

Because the settlement had already been performed by the defendants, no further wrongful dismissal damages were recoverable and the action was dismissed, with the defendants entitled to partial indemnity costs.

A condominium corporation sought declarations and injunctive relief after unit owners circulated a requisition calling for a special meeting to remove three board members.

The court found that the requisition and accompanying letter contained numerous false and misleading statements regarding financial matters, reserve fund expenditures, and the legality of security system upgrades.

Applying principles analogous to corporate shareholder meetings, the court held that a requisition must not mislead owners and must allow them to form a reasoned judgment about whether a meeting should occur.

Because the requisition was based on misleading information intended to induce signatures, it was declared invalid.

The court granted permanent and interim injunctions restraining further dissemination of the statements and temporarily prohibiting the owners from canvassing or soliciting regarding condominium elections or meetings.

The plaintiff brought an action against her accident benefits insurer under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and sought to avoid attending an oral examination for discovery due to alleged psychological harm.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not provide persuasive and compelling medical evidence that attendance for discovery, with appropriate accommodations, would cause significant psychological damage.

The court ordered that the plaintiff attend for examination for discovery and held that the defendant insurer was entitled to examine first under the Rules of Civil Procedure because it served the first affidavit of documents and notice of examination.

The court also ruled that an application for mediation under the Insurance Act does not automatically give rise to litigation privilege and does not, by itself, establish that litigation was reasonably contemplated.

The Crown brought an application under ss. 462.37 and 462.41 of the Criminal Code seeking forfeiture of funds representing proceeds of crime following the respondent’s guilty plea to fraud and money laundering involving approximately $2.8 million taken from his employer.

A third-party corporation claimed an interest in the proceeds as a secured creditor based on a collateral mortgage and judgment arising from municipal servicing work performed on lands purchased with the fraud proceeds.

The court held the third party had not received actual notice of a certificate of pending litigation affecting the property and qualified as a secured creditor, but only up to the stated principal amount of the registered mortgage.

Balancing the equities between the victim of the fraud and the innocent third party, the court exercised discretion to order partial return of funds corresponding to the proportionate benefit conferred on the offender’s property.

The remainder of the funds were forfeited.