Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The plaintiffs, Li Yang (Canada) Holdings Co. Ltd. and Daniel Executive (Canada) Holdings Corp., brought a motion for default judgment and contempt against the Lin Defendants (LYSR Management Ltd., 2708042 Ontario Inc., 2786584 Ontario Inc., Rina Shinchi, and Yangguang Lin).

The case involved a scheme where the Lin Defendants allegedly borrowed money from the plaintiffs to purchase luxury vehicles for export, providing fraudulent documentation and failing to repay loans.

The court found a strong prima facie case for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy.

Despite multiple opportunities, the Lin Defendants failed to participate in the motion.

The court granted default judgment against all Lin Defendants for over $4 million in damages and found Yangguang Lin in contempt of a prior Mareva injunction order.

The Mareva injunction was subsequently vacated as interlocutory orders merge with judgment.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 for an order preserving $543,515 in Canadian currency seized during a murder investigation.

The currency was found in the deceased's residence along with large quantities of controlled substances and drug trafficking paraphernalia.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the currency was the proceeds or instrument of unlawful activity and granted the preservation order, noting no interests of justice weighed against it.

The plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal was previously dismissed with costs.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $4,424.70 plus disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff argued each party should bear their own costs or, alternatively, costs should be fixed between $3,500 and $4,500.

Applying the principles from Boucher, the court fixed the defendant's costs at $4,915.23 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the plaintiff in any event of the cause.

The plaintiff brought two motions: one for leave to amend the statement of claim to add fraudulent conveyance allegations against the defendants' children, and another to compel answers to questions refused during cross-examinations on affidavits.

The defendants did not oppose the amendment but opposed the refusals motion.

The court granted leave to amend as of right.

However, the court dismissed the refusals motion, finding that the broad questions regarding the children's financial circumstances were not relevant to the pending jurisdiction motion, which would focus on factors such as where the parties reside and where the loan contracts were made.

The plaintiffs successfully defeated the defendant's motion to dismiss their defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs.

The defendant argued that no costs should be awarded pursuant to the presumption in s. 137.1(8).

The court distinguished prior case law, finding the plaintiffs were individuals protecting their reputations, not a corporation using strategic litigation.

The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs, fixing fees at $7,500 plus disbursements and HST.

Following the successful certification of a class action regarding transvaginal mesh devices, the plaintiffs sought costs of $900,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The certification motion was heard in two phases, with the first phase adjourned to allow the plaintiffs to gather additional evidence.

The court found that the plaintiffs were the successful party and entitled to costs.

However, recognizing that the defendants should not have to pay for the plaintiffs' 'education' from the first phase unless the defendants are ultimately found culpable, the court awarded $425,000 payable forthwith (accounting for a $25,000 deduction for an abandoned motion) and $450,000 payable in any event of the cause.

Two Requests for Direction (RFDs) were brought regarding the disclosure of documents from prior civil and criminal proceedings concerning St. Anne's Indian Residential School.

In the first RFD, an IAP claimant alleged Canada breached its disclosure obligations by withholding discovery transcripts.

The court dismissed this RFD, finding the transcripts were protected by settlement privilege and the deemed undertaking rule.

In the second RFD, former students and an association sought extraordinary relief, including investigations into the conduct of counsel and the reopening of claims.

The court dismissed the second RFD, holding that the requestors lacked standing and that the court lacked jurisdiction under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement to grant the requested relief, as complaints about lawyer conduct fall outside the court's administrative role.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for a debt of approximately €511,000, claiming it was assigned to him by a German bank.

The defendants admitted the debt but disputed the validity of the assignment under German law.

The court, relying on uncontradicted expert evidence regarding German law, found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove a valid assignment, including bilateral execution, clear identification of the assigned claim, proof of signatory authority, and proper notice to the debtors.

The court determined there was a genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the motion for summary judgment, ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant property owner and new general contractor for the tort of conversion.

After the original general contractor became insolvent, the plaintiff sought to remove its custom-built equipment from the construction site.

The defendants refused access, claiming the equipment had been paid for under the original contract.

The court found that title to the equipment never passed to the defendants and their refusal to allow the plaintiff to retrieve it constituted conversion.

Summary judgment was granted and damages were awarded based on the defendants' previous counter-offer to purchase the equipment.

The moving defendants sought leave to amend their statement of defence to add a counterclaim, crossclaim, and a third party claim in a mortgage enforcement action brought by trustees for syndicated mortgage investors.

The court held that several proposed amendments attempted to withdraw admissions deemed under a Request to Admit, which could not be done indirectly through amended pleadings.

The court further found that proposed claims for an accounting and set-off were not proper defences to the mortgage claim.

The proposed third party claim relating to an alleged improvident sale of a separate property was unrelated to the main mortgage dispute and appeared designed to delay the proceedings.

Leave to amend the defence and counterclaim and to commence the third party claim was dismissed, but leave to add the crossclaim was granted on an unopposed basis.

A simplified procedure trial concerning alleged wrongful sale or removal of gym equipment following a commercial tenant lockout.

The corporate plaintiff sought damages for equipment leased to a fitness club, while the individual plaintiff claimed losses for equipment he personally owned.

Evidence revealed that the corporate plaintiff had been dissolved prior to the issuance of the claim, rendering its claim a nullity that could not be revived after the limitation period.

The court accepted that certain spin bikes and Cybex equipment personally owned by the individual plaintiff were wrongfully removed or sold by the defendants after the lockout.

Damages were assessed based on estimated market values derived from appraisals and auction evidence.

The plaintiff sued his disability insurer for unpaid benefits under a policy that provided two years of benefits for inability to perform his own occupation and thereafter benefits if unable to work at any occupation reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The insurer terminated benefits after surveillance suggested the plaintiff could perform light work and argued he could pursue supervisory or alternative occupations.

The court found that the plaintiff’s physical injuries, chronic pain, limited education, and cognitive limitations rendered him incapable of performing any suitable alternative occupation.

Surveillance showing brief periods of activity did not establish an ability to work competitively or continuously.

The insurer’s denial of benefits and adversarial claims handling constituted bad faith, warranting aggravated and punitive damages.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s construction tendering claim, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs to the date of its Rule 49 offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, holding that a nominal offer to dismiss the action without costs did not justify enhanced costs absent sanctionable conduct by the plaintiff.

Given the unsettled state of the law on construction tendering issues and the legitimate legal dispute raised, the court found the case warranted litigation.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded with reductions to certain fees and disbursements, including expert and travel expenses.

The applicant sought a divorce and damages in tort arising from an assault committed by the respondent spouse following separation.

The court accepted evidence that the respondent forcibly entered the applicant’s home at night and assaulted her, including choking her, striking her head against a wall, and making threats, resulting in physical injuries and ongoing psychological harm.

The court reviewed Canadian jurisprudence on tort claims arising from domestic violence, including assault, battery, and intentional infliction of mental suffering, and considered the role of aggravated damages in compensating victims for humiliating or oppressive conduct.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the respondent’s conduct and the applicant’s continuing emotional distress, the court found the injuries were not permanent and the incidents relatively isolated compared to higher‑award cases.

The applicant was awarded $15,000 in general and aggravated damages and granted a divorce.

The respondents sought costs after the applicants abandoned an application seeking, among other relief, capacity assessments of elderly parents and orders concerning access, guardianship, and financial control.

Under Rule 38.08(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a respondent is presumptively entitled to costs when an application is abandoned unless the court orders otherwise.

The court held that the applicants had some justification for commencing the proceeding, given concerns about potential undue influence over the parents and the absence of independent verification of their wishes.

The application disclosed a bona fide cause of action that was neither frivolous nor vexatious, and it was discontinued shortly after independent confirmation of the parents’ intentions was provided.

In the circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to depart from the usual rule and permitted the abandonment without costs, with no costs awarded for the motion itself.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed, the successful defendant sought an award of costs.

The court considered the discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the principles in rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court noted the unsuccessful plaintiff had advanced serious allegations of fraud and dishonesty that were unsupported by credible evidence and were not put to the defendant in cross-examination.

Although such allegations can justify substantial indemnity costs, the court also considered the plaintiff’s modest means and the overall fairness of the award.

Costs were fixed including disbursements and partial indemnity fees.

Contractors and subcontractors moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a negligence and property damage claim arising from a water leak during mechanical system upgrades to a commercial building.

They argued that a builder’s risk insurance obligation contained in a long‑term land lease between the building owner and its landlord created a subrogation bar protecting them as third‑party beneficiaries.

The court held that the construction contract governing the work contained an “entire agreement” clause and expressly allocated responsibility for builder’s risk insurance to the contractor.

Because the defendants were strangers to the land lease and had neither relied upon nor bargained for its provisions, the lease could not override the later construction contract or confer a defence through the privity exception.

The insurance provision in the land lease therefore did not bar the plaintiff’s action.

Following a commercial trial concerning the valuation of a single common share under a share purchase agreement, the plaintiff obtained judgment significantly exceeding a pre‑trial offer to settle.

The court considered costs under Rules 49 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the discretion under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Because the plaintiff’s Rule 49 offer was more favourable than the judgment ultimately obtained, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court rejected the defendants’ objections to expert report disbursements and counsel fees, finding the litigation complex and the amounts reasonable and proportional.

Costs were fixed in the total amount of $60,458.99.

A property owner brought a motion to dismiss a municipal appeal concerning a property standards order requiring stairwell guard and handrail modifications.

The moving party argued the matter had already been adjudicated in earlier litigation involving the same property and substantially identical compliance issues.

The court held that strict issue estoppel did not apply because the municipality had amended the relevant by-law after the earlier judgment, creating a technically new legislative framework.

However, the court found that allowing the appeal to proceed would constitute an abuse of process because the factual and evidentiary issues were identical to those previously tried and would result in duplicative litigation and wasted judicial resources.

The motion was granted and the municipality’s appeal was dismissed.

The judgment creditor brought a motion for directions regarding enforcement of a writ of seizure and sale and related garnishment proceedings against the judgment debtor.

A mortgagee who was not a party to the action sought an adjournment to permit filing further materials and cross‑examinations, while opposing the judgment creditor’s request that any proceeds of sale of the debtor’s property be paid into court pending determination of mortgage priority issues.

The court found several concerning circumstances surrounding the mortgage assignment, including its timing after registration of the writ and the non‑arm’s‑length relationship between the mortgagor and mortgagee.

To preserve the rights of all parties while related family law, power of sale, and enforcement proceedings continued, the court granted the adjournment but imposed a condition that sale proceeds be paid into court if the property sold.