Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The plaintiff general contractor sued the defendant masonry subcontractor for breach of contract after the defendant withdrew its bid due to a calculation error.

The court found that the defendant was bound by its bid and breached the contract by unilaterally withdrawing.

However, the court rejected the plaintiff's claim that the parties had agreed to an $80,000 reduction in the bid price.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the difference between the defendant's original bid and the replacement subcontractor's price, plus mitigation costs and lost markup.

The plaintiff obtained a summary judgment against the defendant vendor for an aborted real estate transaction.

After the appeal period expired, the plaintiff filed a writ of seizure and sale against the vendor's property.

However, prior to the writ being filed, the vendor had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with a third-party purchaser.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interim order to prevent the transfer of the property and declare its writ valid.

The court dismissed the motion, applying the principle that once an agreement of purchase and sale is signed, the purchaser acquires an equitable interest in the property, and a subsequently filed writ of execution against the vendor does not bind the purchaser's interest.

Nadire Atas sought permission to appeal a court decision (2020 ONSC 3471) that denied her application to rescind a judgment (2018 ONSC 58) declaring her a vexatious litigant.

The court found that her request for permission to appeal was itself vexatious and denied it, stating she had not identified an appealable issue.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of an infant settlement arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court identified several deficiencies in the motion record, including a lack of clarity on the scope of the settlement approval sought (whether it included the adult plaintiff's claims), insufficient evidence regarding the minor plaintiff Rider's specific losses for care, guidance, and companionship, and a potential conflict of interest for the litigation guardian (who was also an injured plaintiff) if the total damages claimed exceeded the defendant's insurance limits.

The court declined to approve the settlement at this stage and required additional materials and clarification before making a decision.

The 11th Case Management Conference addressed the trial process and timetable for a complex action involving historic evidence.

The parties agreed to a bifurcated trial but disagreed on the degree of bifurcation.

The plaintiff proposed a four-phase structure (two liability, two remedies/crossclaims), while the defendants proposed a two-phase structure (all liability in Phase 1, all remedies/crossclaims in Phase 2).

The court adopted the two-phase structure, finding it more efficient and less prone to inconsistencies, while reserving the right for parties to seek further refinement at the pre-trial stage.

A detailed timetable for pleadings, discovery, and documentary production was also established to keep the action on track for a 2022 trial.

The plaintiff moved for an extension of the deadline to set the action down for trial, while the defendants brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The action, stemming from a 1998 arrest, had been stayed due to related criminal proceedings until 2017.

The court applied a contextual approach, considering the preference for merits-based decisions and timely resolution.

It found the plaintiff provided an adequate explanation for the delay, including the criminal proceedings and subsequent steps taken to gather evidence.

The court was not satisfied that the defendants demonstrated actual prejudice.

Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was granted, extending the deadline, and the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss for delay was dismissed.

This endorsement outlines an agreed-upon procedural timetable for a motion in a class proceeding.

It sets deadlines for the exchange of motion records, completion of cross-examinations, delivery of facta, and schedules the hearing dates for September 2020.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, alleging no reasonable cause of action, reliance on false documents, and abuse of process.

The defendant also sought various ancillary orders, including declarations regarding financial obligations and property charges, credit rating restoration, and sealing of court files.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's Statement of Claim adequately pled material facts for its claims based on a mortgage and unpaid credit card bills.

The court determined that the defendant's arguments related to the merits of the plaintiff's claim rather than the adequacy of the pleading itself, which is the focus of a Rule 25.11 motion.

The court noted several substantive issues raised by the defendant that might warrant a trial on the merits.

Costs were reserved.

The defendant, Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), brought a motion to enforce an alleged settlement agreement reached via email after two mediations.

The plaintiffs denied a binding settlement, arguing that HST was not included in the agreed-upon amount.

The court found that the defendant's email constituted a new offer, which the plaintiffs unconditionally accepted, and that the settlement amount was inclusive of HST.

The court enforced the settlement, finding no compelling circumstances or evidence of mistake to justify declining enforcement.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, or alternatively, on a partial indemnity basis, following the dismissal of the defendant Surinder Sarin's motion to set aside default judgment.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, noting that the defendant's conduct was not egregious enough, despite being assisted by counsel, and that he was self-represented.

The court also refused to award costs related to an aborted property sale.

Ultimately, the court found the plaintiff's request for partial indemnity costs to be reasonable given the case's complex history and the work involved, awarding $9,308.91 plus disbursements and HST.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for partition and sale, the respondent sought costs.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding that the applicant made unfounded allegations of dishonest acts against the respondent.

The court also noted the aggressive nature of the motion and the significant power imbalance between the parties.

Costs were fixed at $20,987.66.

The plaintiffs appealed a Master's order bifurcating the liability and damages issues in a non-jury personal injury trial without their consent.

The infant plaintiff suffered a severe head injury, and damages could not be assessed for several years.

The court held that the Master had inherent jurisdiction to order bifurcation in exceptional circumstances, finding that the obiter in Bondy-Rafael abolishing such jurisdiction in non-jury trials was not binding.

Alternatively, applying the Carter test, the court found that Hryniak represented a fundamental shift in civil litigation justifying a departure from precedent.

The appeal was dismissed.

In a commercial dispute concerning banking facilities and losses allegedly arising from the termination of credit supporting commodity hedging, the defendant bank brought a motion seeking approval of a proposed electronic discovery plan and compelling compliance with Phase 2 documentary production.

The plaintiffs opposed the plan and argued that a prior court order already constituted the governing discovery plan.

The court held that the earlier timetable order did not satisfy the requirements of a discovery plan under Rule 29.1.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because it lacked the necessary scope, production, and procedural details.

Applying the Sedona Canada Principles and principles of relevance and proportionality, the court determined the appropriate scope of Phase 2 electronic discovery and approved the bank’s proposed discovery plan with limited amendments.

The plaintiffs’ motion seeking related relief was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from selling an independent medical examinations business to a competitor.

The plaintiffs argued the defendant breached a contractual duty of good faith by failing to negotiate a sale with them and by not offering a right to match the competitor's offer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried as the defendant had fulfilled its limited obligation to offer a first right of negotiation and was not required to provide a right to match.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing a civil action alleging misuse of personal financial information obtained from court filings in related family litigation.

The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant, a mortgage broker associated with the former spouse of one plaintiff, provided their financial information to a third‑party lender without consent, leading to the creation of a financing letter later used in court proceedings.

The defendant argued the claim disclosed no cause of action and was barred by the two‑year limitation period.

The court held that the pleadings could potentially support the tort of intrusion upon seclusion as recognized in Jones v. Tsige and that alternative legal characterizations of pleaded facts do not create a new cause of action outside the limitation period.

It was not plain and obvious that the action would fail, and the defendant’s motions for dismissal for delay and summary judgment were dismissed.

Following a jury trial arising from a pedestrian–motor vehicle collision and related assault, the plaintiff recovered modest damages totalling $3,720 plus prejudgment interest.

The court considered prejudgment interest under s. 128(3) of the Courts of Justice Act and awarded the amount claimed.

The primary issue concerned costs where the recovery fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

Applying Rules 57.01 and 57.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court declined to deny costs entirely but held that the modest recovery and settlement offers justified a significantly reduced award.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded at a substantially lower level than claimed.

Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident where liability had been admitted, the plaintiff recovered damages of $280,525.60.

The parties disputed entitlement to costs in light of competing offers to settle under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the defendant’s offer to settle for $375,000 complied with Rule 49 and triggered the usual cost consequences because the plaintiff obtained a judgment lower than the offer.

The plaintiff was therefore entitled to partial indemnity costs only up to the date of the defendant’s offer, while the defendant was entitled to partial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court reduced both parties’ claimed fees and disbursements as excessive and fixed costs at equivalent amounts, resulting in a full set‑off.

In a professional negligence action involving estate law advice, the plaintiff brought a refusals motion seeking answers to several undertakings and refusals arising from the examination for discovery of a senior lawyer at a defendant law firm.

The court held that questions seeking the lawyer’s legal opinion on the law were improper, as the applicable standard of care would be determined through expert evidence rather than the witness’s own interpretation.

However, certain questions concerning the witness’s personal interpretation of contractual language and matters central to the claim were ordered answered.

On the defendants’ cross‑motion, the court ordered production of all draft expert reports prepared by the plaintiff’s damages expert, preferring authority requiring disclosure of draft reports.

As success was divided, no order for costs was made.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with or evicting them from commercial premises used to operate an auto repair garage.

In the alternative, they sought interim relief from forfeiture of a commercial lease after failing to exercise an option to renew within the contractual deadline.

The court held that although there were serious issues to be tried concerning the lease terms and the parties’ conduct, the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted.

The court also found that the tenant had not demonstrated diligent efforts to comply with the lease renewal provisions and therefore did not meet the requirements for relief from forfeiture.

The motion was dismissed.

Following summary judgment in favour of a mortgagee on a first mortgage, the court determined costs arising from the motion and the broader action.

The mortgagee sought substantial costs against the mortgagors and guarantor, while the defendants sought costs against a second mortgagee whose summary judgment motion dismissing their third party claims failed.

The court held that the mortgagee was entitled to costs but found the amounts claimed excessive and reduced them, allocating portions jointly and severally among the defendants.

The court also found the second mortgagee acted unreasonably in bringing a summary judgment motion involving credibility issues and ordered substantial indemnity costs in favour of the guarantor.

Requests to stay enforcement of the summary judgment and costs orders pending related insurance litigation were denied.