Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The plaintiff was the victim of a sophisticated cyber-fraud where a hacker intercepted emails and directed a payment of $221,422.38 to a fraudulent bank account controlled by the defendants.

The plaintiff obtained a Norwich order to identify the account holders and subsequently brought an action for the return of the funds.

The defendants did not defend the action.

The court granted default judgment, ordering the return of the funds, $5,000 in general damages for business interference, $100,000 in punitive damages to deter cyber-fraud, and full indemnity costs.

The plaintiff municipality was the victim of a cyber-fraud scheme where an unknown individual impersonated a contractor and diverted a payment of $201,285.86 to a fraudulent bank account.

After obtaining a Norwich order to identify the account holders, the plaintiff sued the defendants and noted them in default.

The court granted default judgment for the diverted funds, ordered the release of frozen funds held by the bank, and awarded $100,000 in punitive damages to deter such highly reprehensible misconduct.

Full indemnity costs were also awarded.

The decision addresses motions by Stephen Moranis to set aside a 2013 settlement and to pursue a new, nearly identical action against the Toronto Real Estate Board and others.

The court finds that Moranis’s attempts to re-litigate settled and dismissed claims constitute an abuse of process.

The court dismisses both the motion to set aside the settlement and the new action, emphasizing the importance of finality in litigation and compliance with court-ordered timetables.

This endorsement addresses a procedural matter where the parties sought an adjournment on consent to permit negotiation, following an issue with the appointment of a litigation guardian.

The court acknowledged the request but indicated its intention to proceed with a hearing to establish a timetable for the resolution of the matter, potentially incorporating time for negotiations.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, the successful plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court declined to award elevated costs, noting the plaintiff's conduct contributed to the motion's circumstances, including an unsuccessful adjournment request.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable within 30 days.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an undefended application against the respondent unit owners and their occupant for egregious behaviour that disturbed the quiet enjoyment of the property.

After a previous order required the occupant to vacate the unit and stay away from the property, the applicant sought a declaration against the unit owners for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure their occupant complied with the Condominium Act and the condominium's rules.

The court granted the requested declaration and awarded costs to the applicant.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs exceeding full indemnity, while the defendants argued for costs in the cause or a reduced amount due to the plaintiff's delay.

The court found that the defendants did not act in bad faith or unreasonably in bringing the motion, noting that the delay was largely attributable to the plaintiff's counsel.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $25,735.54.

The moving party brought a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) that was granted to the responding party ex parte.

The court found that the responding party failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts on the ex parte motion, including provisions in the agreement of purchase and sale prohibiting the registration of a CPL and disavowing any legal or equitable interest in the property.

The court also found that the property was not unique to the responding party, as it was purchased as an investment.

The motion was granted, the CPL was discharged, and costs were awarded to the moving party.

This endorsement assesses costs following the plaintiff's acceptance of the defendants' offer to settle a motor vehicle accident claim for $34,000 plus partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff sought over $180,000 in fees and disbursements.

The court applied Rule 58.06, emphasizing fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality.

It found the plaintiff's initial damage claims excessive, particularly for income loss and housekeeping expenses, which lacked strong evidentiary support.

The court significantly reduced the claimed costs, excluding certain expert reports and medical illustrations, and applying a proportionality reduction to the remaining fees and disbursements.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury action, arguing it was statute-barred due to the commencement of a second action outside the presumptive limitation period.

The plaintiff resisted and brought a cross-motion for leave to amend her statement of claim to plead discoverability.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the discoverability of threshold injuries under the Insurance Act was a genuine issue for trial, and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend her pleading.

The court found the prior unserved action irrelevant to the limitation period analysis of the served action.

The defendants sought leave to amend their statement of defence to include a waiver defence, leave to file a jury notice late, and security for costs from the non-resident plaintiff.

The court granted leave to amend the statement of defence on terms that the defendants pay the plaintiff's reasonable substantial indemnity costs for additional steps required due to the amendment.

However, the court denied leave to file a jury notice late, finding the delay unconscionable and prejudicial to the plaintiff.

The motion for security for costs was deferred pending further affidavit evidence from both parties regarding costs and the enforceability of an Ontario judgment in Missouri.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendants to fulfill undertakings and answer questions refused at discovery.

While most issues were resolved prior to the hearing, the plaintiffs continued to seek production of the defendant accountant's working papers related to the 2014 financial statements of a business sold by the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the motion for production of the working papers, finding they were the property of the accountant and not relevant to the issues in the action.

However, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to conduct further examinations for discovery regarding the recently produced financial statements.

This costs endorsement addresses the plaintiffs' request for partial indemnity costs following their successful resistance of a motion brought by the defendants.

The court found the plaintiffs' claim for $50,130.33, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, to be reasonable, considering the complexity and importance of the underlying motion.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments to deny costs, including those related to the conduct of the first motion judge and the plaintiffs' affidavit evidence, emphasizing that the defendants' motion was successfully resisted.

The plaintiffs, former insurance advisors affiliated with a large financial services company, sought payment of monthly “CORe” commissions following termination of their advisory agreements.

The agreements provided that post‑termination commissions would cease if the advisor advised, counselled, or induced clients to replace or cancel policies serviced through the company.

The defendant argued the plaintiffs breached those conditions by soliciting and transitioning hundreds of clients and significant assets to a competing business after termination.

The court held that CORe payments were conditional incentives rather than vested compensation and found that the plaintiffs had engaged in systematic replacement activities contrary to the agreements.

Relief from forfeiture and equitable claims such as quantum meruit were rejected, and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action seeking findings that he was wrongfully dismissed, the determination of a reasonable notice period, and damages for pay in lieu of notice.

The defendant employer argued that the dismissal was for just cause and that multiple factual disputes required a trial.

The court reviewed the summary judgment framework under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the guidance from Hryniak v. Mauldin regarding fair and proportionate adjudication.

The court held that genuine issues requiring trial existed, including disputes regarding workplace misconduct, warnings, after-acquired cause, and mitigation.

Because resolution would require credibility findings and testimony from multiple witnesses, summary judgment was inappropriate.

A farmer sued his insurance broker alleging negligence for failing to obtain insurance coverage for collapse of a tarp barn due to snow load.

Both parties brought competing motions for summary judgment.

The court held that the broker breached its duty of care by failing to adequately advise the client about coverage and foreseeable risks.

However, the plaintiff failed to prove causation because the evidence did not establish that the collapse was more likely than not caused by snow load rather than other possible causes such as wind, design flaws, or construction defects.

As a result, the plaintiff could not establish that the broker’s breach caused the loss.

Following a successful civil Charter action against police defendants, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs after obtaining modest damages and declaratory relief.

The defendants argued that no costs should be awarded because the plaintiff recovered less than $100,000 and should have proceeded under the Simplified Procedure.

The court held that it was reasonable for the plaintiff to proceed under the ordinary procedure given the need for full discovery and cross-examination to establish credibility and Charter violations.

The court further found troubling litigation conduct by the defendants, including problematic testimony and evidentiary issues relating to video recordings.

Balancing the factors under Rule 57.01 and access to justice considerations, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff.

A court-appointed receiver sought summary judgment for payment under a manufacturing contract after the defendant failed to pay the contract price for equipment that had been delivered and for which the defendant had already been paid by its own customer.

The defendant asserted legal and equitable set-off based on alleged claims arising from earlier contracts and potential future warranty liabilities.

The court held that the prior claims were unliquidated and unrelated to the contract at issue and therefore could not ground legal or equitable set-off.

The alleged contingent warranty claims were speculative and unsupported by evidence.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the receiver.

Two plaintiffs injured as passengers in a motor vehicle accident sought leave to add the owner and driver of their own vehicle as defendants after the two-year limitation period had expired.

The court held the discoverability doctrine did not postpone the running of time because the plaintiffs knew the identities of the proposed defendants from the outset and had sufficient facts, including speed evidence, to ground a negligence allegation within the limitation period.

The court further found the plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence by not pursuing available police disclosure through a Rule 30.10 Wagg motion and by not adequately investigating their own clients' accounts.

The motions to amend were dismissed in both actions.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a wrongful dismissal action and argued that prior findings in a defamation proceeding barred the plaintiffs from introducing additional affidavit evidence under the doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process.

The defendant asserted that the earlier decision had already determined that surveillance cameras were installed to intercept private communications, constituting a criminal act justifying termination under the management consulting agreement.

The court held that the earlier decision only determined that private communications had been intercepted under the Criminal Code and did not determine whether the conduct constituted a criminal act of dishonesty resulting in personal gain as required under the contract.

Because the issues in the contractual termination clause had not been fully adjudicated, the prerequisites for issue estoppel were not met.

The court exercised its discretion to permit the plaintiffs to rely on the proposed affidavits in defending the summary judgment motion.