Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

This endorsement concerns the court's approval of a proposed settlement for a minor plaintiff who sustained a leg fracture on the defendant's property.

While the court approved the $135,000 settlement amount, it reduced the plaintiff's counsel's contingency fee from the proposed 30% ($40,500) to $25,000, finding the proposed fee unreasonable at the time of the hearing despite the contingency fee agreement being fair when entered.

The court emphasized the need for counsel to provide time dockets or detailed submissions to support the reasonableness of fees, especially when dealing with persons under disability.

Following the release of reasons dismissing the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence, the self-represented defendant communicated with the court to claim the motion had been withdrawn during submissions.

The court issued supplementary reasons clarifying that the motion was not withdrawn, but rather the relief sought was amended.

The court also noted that the defendant's indirect communication with the court breached Rule 1.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant, Michel Royer, brought a motion to set aside default judgments totaling over $800,000 obtained against him by multiple plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' claims arose from indignities to human remains committed by the co-defendant owner of a funeral home where Royer lived and volunteered.

Royer had retained a lawyer to defend the actions, but due to the negligence of his lawyer and the failure of the plaintiffs' lawyer to provide notice before noting him in default, judgments were entered against him.

The court applied the test for setting aside a default judgment, finding that Royer moved promptly upon learning of the judgments, had a plausible excuse for the delay, and possessed an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was granted and the default judgments were set aside.

Following a partially successful certification motion in a privacy breach class action, the plaintiffs sought costs of $532,162.17.

The court found the requested amount excessive and unreasonable due to over-litigating, over-staffing, and over-docketing.

Noting the plaintiffs' mixed success and last-minute changes to their case that prejudiced the defendants, the court reduced a reasonable starting point of $160,000 by half, awarding the plaintiffs $80,000 all-inclusive.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21 and 25 to strike portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim in a construction dispute.

The parties had previously executed minutes of settlement that released all claims except for a specific delay claim.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims extending beyond the delay claim were barred by the settlement release and struck them as an abuse of process.

The court also limited documentary discovery primarily to the period after the performance date.

Sky Solar, a solar energy project developer, sued its contractor's insurer (Economical) and insurance broker (FCA) after two fires involving transformers at its solar projects.

Sky Solar was an additional insured under the contractor's commercial general liability (CGL) policy.

After the second fire, Sky Solar settled with the project buyer (Firelight) for remediation costs and lost income, then sought indemnity from Economical.

Economical denied coverage, arguing Sky Solar's liability did not arise from the contractor's operations and that Sky Solar breached a policy condition by settling without consent.

Sky Solar also claimed negligence and bad faith against FCA for issuing certificates of insurance.

The court dismissed Sky Solar's action against both Economical and FCA, finding no coverage under the policy and no breach of duty by the broker.

The court issued a costs endorsement following an 8-day jury trial for damages from a motor vehicle accident.

The self-represented plaintiff was unsuccessful, with the jury awarding $10,000 in general damages but nothing for lost income or future housekeeping.

A threshold motion was granted, disentitling the plaintiff from general damages.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs.

The court allowed the defendant's claim for fees but reduced disbursements due to lack of receipts or explanation, awarding a total of $80,980.99 to the defendant.

The plaintiff, Peter St. Marthe, sued the defendant for injuries sustained in a bicycle-car collision.

The defendant admitted liability, leaving the court to determine damages, contributory negligence, whether the plaintiff met the permanent serious impairment threshold, and if the action was statute-barred.

The court found the plaintiff's claim was not statute-barred, he met the permanent serious impairment threshold, and was not contributorily negligent.

Damages were awarded for non-pecuniary loss, past and future income loss, and future housekeeping and home maintenance expenses.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in an action for damages arising from the defendants' failure to close a residential real estate transaction.

The defendants argued the agreement was void due to issues with a power of attorney, misrepresentation of square footage, and failure to provide a survey.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on liability or mitigation of damages.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for forfeiture of the deposit and damages for the loss in property value and increased commission fees upon resale.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a simplified procedure wrongful dismissal action after his employer terminated him alleging cause.

The employer relied on two grounds: alleged misrepresentation of credentials at the time of hiring and failure to complete required winter flight training.

The court held that the employer failed to establish misrepresentation of credentials, noting the lack of supporting evidence and the absence of the allegation in the termination letter.

However, the evidence regarding the training dispute involved conflicting affidavits and credibility issues that could not be resolved on the written record.

The court declined to grant summary judgment and directed that further procedural submissions be made to determine an appropriate process, potentially involving oral evidence.

Following an endorsement determining the underlying application, the court considered written submissions on costs.

Both parties had served offers to settle, but neither offer produced a result more favourable than the court’s decision, so Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure did not affect the costs analysis.

The successful applicants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis totaling just over $31,500 inclusive of disbursements and tax.

The respondent requested an opportunity to have the applicants’ bill assessed but provided no substantive basis to challenge the hourly rates, hours worked, or disbursements.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 and the fairness considerations articulated in Boucher v Public Accountants Council (Ontario), the court found the claimed costs reasonable and awarded the requested amount.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to consolidate two related actions, add a new plaintiff, and amend its pleadings to include claims for defamation and breach of a duty of good faith.

The court held that the two actions should not be formally consolidated but ordered that they be listed for trial consecutively.

The proposed defamation claim and addition of a new plaintiff were refused because the pleadings lacked the particularity required for defamation and would not survive a motion to strike.

The proposed claim for breach of a duty of good faith was also rejected because such a duty cannot stand as an independent cause of action separate from breach of contract.

Certain amendments pleading material facts were allowed, while others were dismissed for improperly pleading evidence rather than material facts.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for damages arising from the termination of a propane supply relationship and seeking judgment on a counterclaim for unpaid invoices.

The dispute centered on whether negotiations following the expiry of earlier agreements resulted in a binding contract and whether promissory estoppel or bad faith negotiations could support the plaintiff’s claim.

The court held that the plaintiff’s December 6, 2001 letter constituted a counter-offer that rejected the defendant’s earlier proposal, eliminating any ability to later accept it.

The court further found no evidence establishing promissory estoppel or any pleaded claim based on a duty of good faith in negotiations.

Summary judgment was appropriate in this document-driven case, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, and judgment was granted to the defendant on its counterclaim for unpaid gas supplied.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained while attempting to exit a malfunctioning elevator in her condominium building after severe rainfall caused power failures and flooding of elevator pits.

The claim against the condominium corporation had been settled, leaving the elevator maintenance contractor as the remaining defendant.

The plaintiff alleged negligence and occupier’s liability, relying in part on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

The court found that the elevator malfunctions were caused by extraordinary flooding and that the maintenance contractor had responded reasonably and in compliance with applicable standards.

The plaintiff failed to establish any breach of the standard of care or causal link between the contractor’s conduct and her injuries.

Following a successful motion brought by the applicant, the court considered the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis, while the respondent argued that no costs should be ordered.

The court held that although the applicant succeeded, the respondent’s position was not entirely without merit and there was no egregious conduct justifying full indemnity costs.

Taking into account the complexity of the motion, the preparation required, and certain duplication of work by counsel, the court awarded partial indemnity costs with limited recoverable work.

The plaintiff moved under rule 37.14(1)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing her wrongful dismissal action for delay under rule 48.14(5).

The court applied the contextual analysis derived from appellate jurisprudence and considered the four Reid factors: explanation for the delay, inadvertence in missing the deadline, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendant.

While the plaintiff established inadvertence and moved promptly after learning of the dismissal, the court found the litigation delay inadequately explained and concluded that the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice arising from the expiry of the limitation period.

Balancing the competing principles of deciding cases on their merits and ensuring timely justice, the court declined to grant a further indulgence.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was therefore refused.

Following a successful appeal overturning the dismissal of an action and awarding damages for false arrest and trespass, the court was tasked with determining trial costs payable by one defendant.

The successful plaintiffs sought full or substantial indemnity costs exceeding $400,000, arguing the litigation raised issues of public importance and that the defendant advanced meritless positions.

The defendant argued the claim was disproportionate to the modest damages award and that much of the trial addressed unsuccessful allegations including conspiracy and punitive damages.

Applying s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized proportionality, the conduct of the parties, and the reasonable expectations of the losing party.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis in a reduced amount reflecting the complexity and importance of the issues while accounting for excessive litigation steps.

The court provided procedural directions for a consolidated trial involving corporate oppression claims, family law claims, and disputes over alleged ownership interests in several companies and properties.

Multiple parties proposed competing structures for the order in which the issues should be tried.

The court held that the determination of ownership interests in the companies and properties must occur first before any remedies could be considered, as premature remedies could prejudice other parties’ claims.

The court rejected a proposal to resolve one party’s oppression action in its entirety before the others and instead structured the trial into staged phases addressing ownership, family law and corporate claims, and finally remedies.

The court also imposed strict deadlines for motions, disclosure, and examinations prior to trial.

Following a civil judgment awarding $3.5 million, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs and pre-judgment interest.

The parties agreed the successful party was entitled to partial indemnity costs to September 30, 2010 and substantial indemnity costs thereafter but disputed the applicable hourly rates.

The court fixed partial indemnity rates for counsel after mediation and accepted substantial indemnity rates calculated at 1.5 times the partial indemnity rate pursuant to Rule 1.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also addressed deductions for certain attendances and confirmed taxable disbursements.

Pre-judgment interest was ordered on the judgment amount from August 27, 2003 at 3.3% pursuant to s.127(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the minor plaintiff to attend for examination for discovery in an action arising from injuries sustained by her mother during a school-organized skating trip.

The minor plaintiff advanced a derivative claim under the Family Law Act for loss of care, guidance and companionship.

The court considered the Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery of parties under disability and the requirement for a discovery plan.

The litigation guardian had already been examined for discovery and sufficient evidence had been obtained to quantify the minor’s Family Law Act claim.

The court held that requiring the child’s examination was unnecessary and exercised its discretion to dismiss the motion, subject to a condition that the minor not be called as a witness at trial unless the defence is permitted to examine her for discovery.