Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The decision addresses whether coverage for Extra Expense and Professional Fees under insurance policies issued to two Ontario summer camps is subject to the $1,000,000 sublimit in the Infectious Disease Extension, following business interruption due to COVID-19.

The court finds that both Extra Expense and Professional Fees are subject to the $1,000,000 sublimit, rejecting the plaintiffs’ arguments for additional coverage.

The court also addresses principles of insurance contract interpretation and the onus of proof in such disputes.

In a multi-party motor vehicle accident action, the plaintiffs and two of the defendants entered into a Pierringer agreement.

The non-settling defendants brought a motion to compel production of the agreement, redacted only as to quantum.

The settling parties argued that only the 'essential terms' needed to be disclosed and that the agreement itself was protected by settlement privilege.

The court granted the motion, finding that the non-settling defendants faced potential procedural prejudice and that the need to protect them outweighed the public interest in maintaining settlement privilege over the non-financial terms of the agreement.

The defendant estate trustee brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action challenging the deceased's will for delay.

The plaintiff, the deceased's separated spouse, commenced the action in 2013 but took few steps to advance it.

The plaintiff conceded the deceased's capacity but maintained his challenge based on undue influence.

The court declined to dismiss the action, finding the delay was explained by the plaintiff's advanced age and the COVID-19 pandemic, and that a fair trial was still possible.

The court ordered the matter set down for trial.

The applicants brought an application and a motion for an injunction against their neighbours and the Town of Oakville regarding the construction of a retaining wall between their properties.

The applicants abandoned the injunction motion shortly before the hearing.

At the hearing of the application, the court found that the material facts regarding liability, encroachment, and damages were highly disputed and could not be resolved on a paper record.

The court dismissed the application and ordered the matter to proceed to trial.

The applicants were ordered to pay partial indemnity costs for the abandoned injunction motion.

The applicant sought an order declaring the respondent a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, along with injunctive relief and exemplary damages.

The respondent had initiated numerous unsuccessful Small Claims Court actions and engaged in a pattern of abusive online behaviour and correspondence.

The court declared the respondent a vexatious litigant and stayed his outstanding claims against the applicant.

However, the court declined to grant the requested injunctions or exemplary damages, finding that the applicant had engaged in similar harassing behaviour and came to the court with unclean hands.

A mutual non-communication and 200-metre distance order was imposed.

The City of Toronto brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to shut down several medical cannabis dispensaries operating in violation of its zoning by-laws.

The dispensary operators brought a cross-motion seeking an interlocutory exemption from the by-laws and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, arguing that the existing regulatory scheme failed to provide reasonable access to medical cannabis.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the balance of convenience favoured the City, as there is a presumption that validly enacted laws serve the public interest.

The court granted the City's injunction but declined to issue an order directing police enforcement, noting the lack of statutory authority for such an order in a civil proceeding.

The operators' cross-motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion asking the case management judge to recuse himself from an upcoming costs hearing, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant relied solely on the fact that she had filed a complaint against the judge with the Canadian Judicial Council, alleging sexist and racist remarks during a previous appearance.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mere filing of a complaint, without cogent evidence to support the allegations, is insufficient to displace the presumption of judicial impartiality.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for injuries sustained after falling from the roof of their home while performing renovations.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that the plaintiff was acting as a contractor and the defendants, as occupiers, had no duty to provide safety equipment or supervise his work.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The Superior Court of Justice, on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01, reviewed the plaintiff's action and related motions for dismissal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The action, concerning an involuntary hospitalization in 2010 and subsequent requests for inquiry in 2015, was found to be outside the applicable limitation period and lacking a discernable cause of action.

The plaintiff's submissions were deemed contemptuous and unhelpful.

The court dismissed the action and noted that two of the plaintiff's motions seeking orders compelling government investigations were also frivolous.

The plaintiff, Sharon Mary Irvine, suffered a wrist fracture after falling on the defendants' property.

The fall occurred while she was attempting to step onto a rear porch with an unusually high step, exacerbated by the presence of the defendants' unrestrained pit bull, Tazzie, which was required to be leashed and muzzled under the Dog Owners' Liability Act.

The court found the defendants negligent under the Occupiers' Liability Act for the unsafe step height and for breaching the Dog Owners' Liability Act.

However, the plaintiff was found contributorily negligent (35%) because the high step was plain and obvious, it was daylight, and she had other options for entry or assistance.

Liability was apportioned 65% to the defendants and 35% to the plaintiff, with damages agreed at $31,500.

The plaintiff, a 42-year-old magazine publisher with 16.5 years of continuous service (including time with a predecessor employer), brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal damages after being terminated without cause.

The court awarded a 16-month reasonable notice period.

The court also resolved disputes over the calculation of commissions and bonuses during the notice period, projecting commissions based on the plaintiff's historical performance and the new magazine's total revenue.

A trust and accounting approach was ordered for mitigation during the remainder of the notice period.

The defendant landlord brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a personal injury claim arising from an alleged assault at an after-hours nightclub operating in the basement of its property.

The moving party argued the action was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 and that it owed no duty of care because it had no knowledge of the alleged illegal nightclub operations.

The court found the plaintiff knew of the assault and began efforts to identify the property owner shortly after the incident, establishing that the claim was discovered well before the limitation deadline.

The court also concluded that, absent evidence the landlord knew of the illegal nightclub activity, no duty of care arose.

The claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to add its subcontractor as a defendant to an existing construction dispute after a tunnel collapse caused additional project costs.

The proposed defendant argued the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of a potential negligence claim when the tunnel collapse occurred and was therefore required to act with due diligence within two years of that event.

Discoverability did not extend the limitation period merely because the plaintiff later learned of the defendant’s alleged negligence through a statement of defence.

The motion to add the proposed defendant was denied as statute‑barred.

Following two related applications argued together, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

The successful party sought a global partial indemnity costs award exceeding $40,000 against two opposing parties.

The court emphasized the importance of proportionality, reasonable expectations of the parties, and compliance with Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly the requirement to exchange Costs Outlines before the hearing.

Finding the claimed amount excessive and inadequately supported by time breakdowns, the court reduced the requested costs and apportioned them separately between the two opposing parties based on their respective involvement in the proceedings.

Following the dismissal of an action on summary judgment concerning alleged nondisclosure in a land sale, the successful defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs had alleged that the vendor Crown breached duties of good faith and honesty by failing to disclose Indigenous land-related claims affecting the property.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs under Rule 57.01 and the Courts of Justice Act and rejected the argument that the Crown’s costs should be discounted because government counsel are salaried.

The court held the defendants’ claimed fees and disbursements were reasonable given the complexity of responding to allegations of bad faith and the extensive factual investigation required.

Costs of $383,745.81 on a partial indemnity basis were awarded to the defendants.

Supplementary reasons addressing disagreement over the form of an order following a request for directions under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement Independent Assessment Process.

The applicants sought broad language compelling Canada to produce documents relating to alleged abuse at a residential school and to impose general disclosure obligations.

The court held that the operative order should reflect only the specific remedy granted in the earlier decision, not broader interpretive statements about Canada’s obligations under Schedule D, Appendix VIII of the settlement agreement.

The court ordered Canada to conduct additional document searches, including RCMP records relating to a specified alleged assault, update relevant narrative and person‑of‑interest reports, and produce documents upon request.

Other requested relief was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was an abuse of process due to a prior default judgment.

The court declined to strike the entire action, finding the prior action involved a sublease while the current action involved the purchase and sale of a business.

However, the court struck several claims, including inducing breach of contract against a corporate director without leave to amend, and claims for unjust enrichment and conspiracy with leave to amend.

The moving parties were awarded partial indemnity costs.

The moving parties sought summary judgment dismissing a solicitor's negligence and breach of retainer claim arising from a law firm breakup and the transfer of approximately 225 client files.

The responding party alleged the retainer required counsel to obtain charging orders against transferred files, but the court found no express or implied term to that effect in the written retainer or subsequent instructions.

Applying the summary judgment framework under Rule 20 and Hryniak, the court held the evidentiary record permitted a fair and proportionate adjudication without trial.

The motion was granted and the action dismissed.

Following a summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim against a municipal defendant, the court addressed costs.

The defendant municipality sought costs of the entire action on a partial indemnity basis, arguing it had succeeded in having the claim against it dismissed.

The plaintiffs argued that awarding full action costs was premature because the municipality remained involved through a cross-claim.

The court agreed that it was inappropriate to assess all action costs before trial but held that reasonable partial indemnity costs for the summary judgment motion were warranted.

The court reduced the requested preparation and attendance costs and awarded a portion of the claimed disbursements attributable to the motion.

Appeal from a Master's order compelling production of communications and answers on discovery despite a claim of litigation privilege.

The appellant argued that emails and a meeting with its insurance broker were created for the dominant purpose of anticipated litigation following denial of insurance coverage for an aircraft crash.

The court held that the appellant failed to establish an evidentiary basis that the dominant purpose of the communications was litigation, noting that the available evidence suggested the discussions focused on advancing the insurance claim rather than preparing for litigation.

The court further held that any common interest litigation privilege between the insured and the broker would have been dissolved once the insured commenced an action against the broker.

The Master's order compelling disclosure was upheld.