Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The corporate defendants, CYD Investment Inc. and CY Capital Inc., brought a motion to dissolve a Mareva injunction granted ex parte against all defendants in a fraud action.

The plaintiff alleged the corporate defendants were vehicles for a co-defendant's fraudulent scheme involving private mortgage lending.

The court found that the more developed evidentiary record undermined two key factual underpinnings of the Mareva order: the strong prima facie case that the co-defendant controlled the corporate defendants, and the finding of a real risk of asset dissipation.

The balance of convenience also favoured dissolution given sufficient assets remained under other injunctions to satisfy the claim.

The Mareva injunction was dissolved against the corporate defendants, with a reference ordered for damages and costs awarded in their favour.

The defendants, Canada School of Public Service et al., brought a motion to set aside a noting of default entered by the self-represented plaintiff, Elsa Joseph.

The plaintiff argued that a 20-day timeline applied under the Rules of Civil Procedure and that the defendants were in contempt for non-compliance with court orders.

The court found that while the Crown Liability and Proceedings Regulations suggested a 30-day timeline, even assuming a 20-day timeline, the interests of justice favored setting aside the default.

The court found the defendants' delay was extremely short (about three days), their reasons for delay reasonable (seeking to finalize the statement of claim content), and that they showed a continued intention to defend the matter.

The court also ordered the matter to case management, finding it a useful tool for this complex action with a self-represented plaintiff who misunderstood the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $2,500 in partial indemnity costs due to her unreasonable conduct in noting default and refusing to set it aside.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce an alleged settlement agreement reached on December 8, 2023, in a professional negligence action.

The plaintiff opposed, claiming a misunderstanding with his own counsel regarding the scope of settlement authority.

The court applied Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that an objective review of the correspondence between counsel clearly indicated a mutual intention to create a legally binding contract.

The court held that any misunderstanding was solely between the plaintiff and his lawyers, not between the parties, and therefore did not invalidate the settlement.

The motion to enforce the settlement was granted, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for long-term disability benefits on the basis that it was commenced outside the two-year limitation period.

The defendant also moved to dismiss the action for late service of the statement of claim, while the plaintiff cross-moved to validate service.

The court validated the late service of the statement of claim, finding the delay was due to solicitor inadvertence during the COVID-19 pandemic and caused no prejudice.

The court also allowed the summary judgment motion to proceed despite the defendant not having filed a statement of defence, finding the plaintiff's prior counsel had implicitly consented to the procedure.

On the limitation period issue, the court held that the plaintiff's claim was discovered when she received the initial denial letter, which clearly stated the denial was final and explicitly warned of the limitation period.

The internal appeal process did not pause the limitation period.

The action was dismissed as statute-barred.

Following a successful anti-SLAPP motion that struck a defamation and malicious prosecution action, the moving parties sought damages under s. 137.1(9) of the Courts of Justice Act and costs.

The court found the struck action was brought for an improper purpose to intimidate and punish the moving parties.

The court awarded $25,000 in general damages to the father and $20,000 to the daughter for the stress and anxiety caused by the abusive litigation.

The moving parties were also awarded full indemnity costs for the struck action, while the responding parties were denied costs for the surviving counterclaim.

The moving party was defrauded of $318,235.80 when a fraudulent email directed payment owed to a contractor into a new bank account.

After obtaining an initial Norwich order and freezing funds at a bank, the moving party traced the remaining funds to additional bank accounts.

The moving party brought an ex parte motion for a further order freezing the traced funds and requiring the target financial institutions to disclose information about the transfers.

The court granted the targeted freezing order and Norwich order, noting the funds appeared to be the property of the moving party.

The applicant church sought $75,000 in costs after being unsuccessful on an urgent application for an interim injunction to stay COVID-19 restrictions on in-person religious services.

The church argued costs were warranted because the case raised a novel issue of significant public importance.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the injunction application focused on the narrow interests of the church rather than broad public interest, and turned on settled legal principles rather than novel issues.

No costs were awarded to either party for the injunction application.

A case conference was held to address trial management issues for an upcoming virtual trial concerning a development project and a claim of misfeasance of public office.

The court issued directions regarding the narrowing of issues, the exchange of witness lists and will-say statements, the filing of a joint document brief, and the scheduling of witnesses.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of an infant settlement and disbursement of funds.

The court approved the $58,000 settlement for the infant plaintiff, Bentley Hall, who suffered abuse at school.

However, the court declined to approve the request to pay the net settlement funds into a Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP), ordering them paid into court instead, citing a lack of exceptional circumstances to deviate from Rule 7.09(1).

Furthermore, the court refused to enforce the plaintiffs' contingency fee agreement (CFA) because it was not in writing, as required by the Solicitors Act and its Regulation.

The proposed legal fees were also deemed unreasonable and disproportionate, leading the court to assess and reduce them from $15,461.79 to $11,865 (including HST).

The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for short-term and long-term disability benefits, arguing the claims were statute-barred, no LTD application was submitted, policy breaches occurred, and the insurer was prejudiced by lack of medical evidence.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that the action was commenced within the applicable limitation period, adequate proof of claim for LTD benefits was submitted, and the insurer was not prejudiced.

Leave was granted to the plaintiff to amend her Statement of Claim.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) and (b) to strike portions of the plaintiffs' Amended Amended Statement of Claim.

The claims at issue included breach of trust, misappropriation, defalcation, and relief under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and Assignments and Preferences Act (APA), as well as interim relief.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the breach of trust, misappropriation, and defalcation claims, finding they were not plainly obvious to fail.

However, claims for declaratory relief under the BIA and claims under the APA were struck as premature, as were claims relying on an unproclaimed section of the Construction Act.

The court also dismissed the defendants' request for a declaration that deposits were forfeited, deeming it a mixed question of fact and law unsuitable for determination at the pleadings stage.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant insurer to answer refusals from an examination for discovery and for leave to examine a second representative.

The action arose from the defendant's denial of the plaintiff's water loss claim on the basis that it was staged.

The plaintiff sought extensive disclosure regarding other similar claims denied by the defendant involving members of the same ethnic community, alleging racial profiling and bad faith.

The court ordered the defendant to produce its template denial letter and answer specific questions regarding any connection between the plaintiff's claim and the other claims.

However, the court denied the plaintiff's overbroad requests for the entire investigative files of the other claims, as the defendant was not relying on a conspiracy defence.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's request to examine a second representative, finding the first representative was not uninformed or evasive.

The plaintiffs' property suffered two water damage incidents, leading to claims against their insurer (AXA/Intact), an independent adjuster (McLeod), and insurance brokers (Hoffman and Cohen & Lord).

The court addressed multiple motions: the defendants' summary judgment motions regarding limitation periods and an "under construction" exclusion, and the plaintiffs' motion for better discovery and an informed representative.

The court dismissed the defendants' limitation period arguments (without prejudice to trial), found the "under construction" exclusion inapplicable, and granted the plaintiffs' discovery requests, ordering the defendants to provide better affidavits of documents and an informed representative, and for McLeod to be examined for discovery.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the defendant for unpaid tree harvesting charges totaling $80,672.01.

The defendant, who was self-represented, claimed an Aboriginal or Métis right to harvest trees and argued the fees were unconstitutional.

However, the defendant failed to file any affidavit evidence to support his Métis status, his constitutional claims, or to dispute the calculation of the fees.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

The plaintiff sued for damages totalling approximately two million dollars, alleging negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and defamation against the Attorney General of Canada and a contract manager, Paul Piché.

The claims arose from the plaintiff's participation in a 2007 Request for Standing Offer (RFSO) where his bid was largely prepared by a competitor, leading to a bid-rigging investigation and charges (later stayed).

The plaintiff argued that negligent answers to RFSO questions induced his actions and that Piché's statements to the Competition Bureau were defamatory.

The court dismissed all claims, finding no duty of care owed by the defendants to provide legal advice on the Competition Act, no negligent misrepresentation or breach of standard of care, and no malice in the defamation claim.

The court also determined that the plaintiff's reliance was unreasonable and that his alleged damages were unproven and too remote, largely attributable to his own contributory negligence.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for a defaulted second mortgage.

While the parties agreed on the mortgage's maturity and the principal amount owing, they disputed the exact date of default, the amount of interest owed, and other damage claims, including NSF cheque fees and alleged cash payments by the guarantor.

The court granted summary judgment on the core issues of mortgage default and the principal amount owing, entitling the plaintiff to an order for possession and to continue the sale process.

However, due to genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the specific amounts payable, a reference was directed under Rule 64.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine these disputed amounts.

The plaintiff, a scooter retailer, sued a competing retailer for defamation based on statements made by the defendant's principal to private investigators hired by the plaintiff.

The court found that the statements, which accused the plaintiff of unethical and illegal business practices, were defamatory and published.

The court awarded $10,000 in general damages but declined to grant a permanent injunction, finding no evidence that the defendants would continue to make defamatory statements after the judgment.

Following acceptance of an offer before a scheduled trial, the parties sought a judicial determination of costs, pre-judgment interest, and the proper wording of a release.

The court assessed relative success on issues including the quantum of costs previously awarded, the appropriate start date for pre‑judgment interest, and the permissibility of additional confidentiality and derivative action clauses in the release.

The plaintiff was more successful overall, particularly in resisting unilateral additions to the release.

A prior Rule 49 offer did not trigger adverse cost consequences because the judgment exceeded the offer and the proposed release terms had not been agreed upon.

Applying Rule 57 cost factors, the court fixed the plaintiff’s costs of the motion at $9,000 inclusive.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim without leave to amend under Rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim alleged conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligence arising from the defendant’s conduct and counsel’s conduct in a separate ongoing action between the same parties.

The court held that the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action because a separate lawsuit cannot be used to challenge litigation conduct occurring in another proceeding.

The court further found that another proceeding between the same parties concerning the same subject matter was already pending, rendering the new action improper and abusive.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend, the action was dismissed, and the plaintiff was prohibited from commencing further proceedings against the defendant without leave of the court.

The defendants brought a motion requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs in a solicitor’s negligence action arising from the dismissal of the plaintiff’s earlier employment and disability benefits lawsuit for delay.

The court applied Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario, having lived abroad for extended periods and lacking exigible assets within the jurisdiction.

The plaintiff failed to provide sufficiently detailed financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity and did not demonstrate a good chance of success on the merits of the negligence claim.

The court also considered fairness to both parties given the overlapping proceedings and litigation history.

Security for costs was ordered in the amount of $40,000 on a partial indemnity basis up to the completion of examinations for discovery.