Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants regarding the alleged misclassification of non-managerial sales representatives as independent contractors rather than employees.

The parties consented to certification but disputed whether the class should be divided into two subclasses (lead generators and appointment bookers) and whether a second representative plaintiff was required.

The court certified the class action, divided the class into two subclasses for efficiency, and held that the single plaintiff could represent both subclasses as there was no actual conflict of interest.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the defendants were substantially interfering with a shared right-of-way between their neighbouring properties.

The plaintiff required vehicular access over the right-of-way to satisfy municipal parking requirements for his renovations, but the defendants had built a fence extension and installed concrete slabs blocking access.

The court found that the right-of-way had not been abandoned and that the defendants' structures constituted a substantial interference.

The court ordered the removal of the extension and slabs but dismissed the plaintiff's claims for damages and the defendants' counterclaim for property damage.

The defendants brought a motion for an order that the same judge hear the third party proceeding as the main action, which was dismissed.

The third party sought costs of the motion.

The court found that costs should follow the event but that the $14,000 claimed was disproportionate for a procedural motion that could have been resolved at a case conference.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The Defendant Mortgagees brought a motion, and the Lienholders brought a cross-motion, for reconsideration of a judgment regarding priority under s. 78(3) of the Construction Act.

The court reviewed the test for reconsideration, noting it is reserved for rare circumstances involving obvious errors of inadvertence.

Finding that both parties were essentially attempting to re-argue legal questions and valuation findings appropriate for an appeal rather than reconsideration, the court dismissed both the motion and the cross-motion.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment on his counterclaim for breach of contract arising from an aborted real estate transaction.

The plaintiffs had sued for the return of their deposit, arguing the agreement of purchase and sale was never finalized because the defendant failed to initial changes regarding chattels.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that conflicting affidavit evidence regarding whether the plaintiffs were informed of the acceptance and whether there was a true meeting of the minds created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendant, Renfrew Power Generation Inc. (RPG), brought a motion to decertify a class action alleging trespass due to shoreline erosion caused by a raised lake level.

The original certification was based on the understanding that a 107.5 Contour Line defined all class members' property boundaries.

New survey evidence, obtained after certification, revealed that many class members' boundaries were not defined by this contour line, but by metes and bounds or other methods, and that RPG acquired flooding rights through various means not uniformly affecting all properties.

The court found that the common issue, as certified, was no longer necessary or a substantial ingredient for each class member's claim, as individual property boundary determinations were required.

The motion to decertify was granted.

The Crown brought a motion under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike and dismiss claims brought against it in tort and for alleged Charter breaches.

The court held that the tort claims were a nullity because the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

With respect to the Charter claims, the statement of claim failed to plead a concise statement of material facts capable of supporting a viable cause of action or damages claim.

The court found the allegations largely constituted a collateral attack on judicial decisions made during the plaintiff’s bail proceedings.

All claims against the Crown were dismissed.

The defendant bank brought a motion seeking a further and better affidavit of documents and leave to amend its statement of defence in an action arising from three vehicle financing loans.

The amendments alleged that the plaintiff engaged in numerous additional vehicle transactions with related dealerships, making those transactions relevant to the issues in the action.

The court held that the plaintiff’s pleadings placed the nature of these additional transactions and relationships in issue, rendering documentary disclosure concerning them relevant.

The court rejected arguments based on proportionality and lack of relevance, emphasizing the significant damages claimed and the scope of the pleadings.

The defendant’s motion for further documentary production was granted and the plaintiff was ordered to produce the documents within 45 days.

On an adjournment appearance following a prior order, the court was asked to resolve two disputed terms of a draft order pending the return of a motion.

The first issue concerned whether defendants could withdraw $500 each or $500 in total per week for living expenses from a corporate bank account subject to court supervision.

The court interpreted the prior order and determined the permitted withdrawal was $500 per week in total for the named individuals.

The second issue concerned a proposed requirement that certain defendants produce monthly bank account statements; the court ordered that provision deleted pending further proceedings.

Costs of the attendance were reserved to the judge hearing the motion on the return date.

Following a bifurcated civil trial in which the defendants were found not liable for historic abuse allegations and the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, the court considered the defendants’ request for costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of $145,000 arising from complex litigation involving extensive documentary disclosure and numerous expert reports.

The court reviewed the purposes of costs awards and the relevant factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, including the defendants’ settlement offers and the litigation’s complexity.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and fairness, the court declined to award the full amount requested but fixed costs in a substantial sum reflecting the defendants’ success and the burden of defending the allegations.

Prisoner passengers injured in a rear-end collision while being transported in a police prisoner transport vehicle sought punitive damages against the police service and related defendants after settling compensatory claims with other parties.

The plaintiffs alleged that the design of the transport vehicle—lacking seat belts, padding, visibility, and communication systems—demonstrated reckless disregard for prisoner safety.

The defendants argued the design reflected industry standards and balanced passenger safety with the need to prevent prisoner-on-prisoner and prisoner-on-officer violence.

The court held that punitive damages require malicious, high‑handed, or reprehensible conduct warranting denunciation.

Because the vehicle design reflected a rational policing approach supported by industry practice and reasonable debate over competing safety concerns, the conduct did not meet the threshold for punitive damages.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that the corporate plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

Evidence before the court showed that the plaintiff had outstanding judgments exceeding $1,000,000 and had filed no responding evidence demonstrating available assets.

The court held that once the defendants established the Rule 56.01(1)(d) threshold, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to prove sufficient assets, demonstrate impecuniosity, or show that its claim had a strong likelihood of success.

The plaintiff failed to meet any of these evidentiary burdens.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $15,000 as security for costs and awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs of the motion.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to strike the statement of claim or, alternatively, stay the action until the corporate plaintiff filed a notice of appointment of lawyer under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The corporate plaintiff sought leave to represent itself through an individual who claimed to be a director and general manager.

The court reviewed the evidentiary record and found inconsistencies between sworn affidavits and public corporate filings regarding the individual's corporate status, and noted evidence suggesting the individual was holding himself out as providing legal services without proper authorization.

The court concluded that permitting the individual to represent the corporation would effectively endorse the unauthorized provision of legal services.

The plaintiff was denied leave to be represented by the individual and ordered to retain counsel within sixty days failing which the claim would be struck and the action dismissed.

Costs decision following litigation between the applicant and multiple respondents in a commercial dispute.

The court considered the discretionary factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality, complexity, and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

Although the matter was not factually or legally complex, it was important to the litigants.

The court found that one respondent had been more successful than the applicant.

Costs were fixed at $30,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements, payable partly immediately and partly upon the sale of property.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of an action brought by the estate of a deceased investment advisor concerning alleged entitlement to the advisor’s book of client accounts.

The defendants argued that pursuant to the brokerage firm’s policy, client accounts belonged to the firm upon the advisor’s death and therefore the estate had no property interest or right to disclosure regarding their value.

The estate relied on the advisor’s employment contract stating that he owned his accounts during his lifetime and argued that ownership should pass to the estate absent an agreement to the contrary.

The court held that the evidentiary record was insufficient to determine whether the firm’s general policy applied to the advisor or how it interacted with the individualized employment contract.

Because the moving parties failed to demonstrate that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, summary judgment was refused.

The defendant sought costs following a motion that combined a motion to strike the statement of claim and a motion for summary judgment.

The court had previously indicated the original pleading disclosed no viable cause of action and permitted the plaintiff to file a fresh amended statement of claim with costs thrown away.

The defendant claimed over $115,000 in costs, arguing the amended pleading introduced entirely new causes of action and rendered extensive preparation for the summary judgment motion wasted.

The court held that the costs relating to the summary judgment motion should be treated as costs in the cause because it was unclear whether the motion would ultimately have succeeded or whether it had been premature under the principles articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services v. Flesch.

Costs for the successful motion to strike were fixed and ordered payable immediately, while the balance relating to summary judgment was deferred pending the outcome of the action.

Following an unsuccessful jurisdictional motion brought by certain respondents seeking dismissal of part of a claim, the court addressed costs.

The motion was dismissed and another respondent was entirely successful.

Applying the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality and the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court fixed costs in favour of the successful party.

Costs were awarded inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s $4.5 million action alleging that corporate sponsors of a soccer association owed a duty to ensure adequate insurance coverage for players, the court determined the issue of costs.

The successful defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs following a Rule 21 motion that terminated the claim at an early stage.

The court held that while the defendants were entitled to significant costs, the hours claimed by counsel were excessive and involved duplication of work.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the requested amounts and fixed reasonable costs payable to the successful defendants.

The moving parties sought an order discharging or limiting a Certificate of Pending Litigation registered by the responding parties in relation to a recreational time‑share cottage development.

The responding parties alleged entitlement to interval ownership in one of the cottages pursuant to contractual arrangements connected to the sale and redevelopment of their former property.

Applying the equitable factors governing discharge of a certificate under s. 103(6) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court found that the claims raised a triable issue regarding an interest in land and that damages alone would not adequately compensate the responding parties.

The court concluded that the moving parties had not established sufficient grounds to discharge the certificate.

The certificate remained registered, though the court indicated it could potentially be confined to the specific intervals in dispute.

The plaintiff bank brought a summary judgment motion against a corporate borrower and its principals following default on credit facilities.

The corporate defendant did not dispute the indebtedness.

The primary issue was whether the individual defendants were personally liable under a forbearance agreement after prior guarantees were released.

The court interpreted the commercial contract as a whole and concluded that the individuals were jointly liable for the monthly forbearance fee and for failing to convey assigned tax credits, as expressly contemplated by the agreement.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the bank against both the corporation and the individual defendants.