Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for an interim order to recover possession of a vehicle financed under a conditional sales contract.

The defendant, who purchased the vehicle from a private seller and claimed to be a bona fide purchaser without notice of the bank's lien, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the bank failed to provide sufficient evidence of default or substantial grounds to establish unlawful detention by the defendant.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the defendant, who had possessed the vehicle for over three years and incurred significant costs to recover it after it was stolen.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Bemco Financial Services Ltd., for a deficiency on a mortgage loan after a power of sale.

The court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the sale price, accounting for rents, management fees, property taxes, or real estate commissions.

The court disallowed a three-month interest penalty as a prohibited penalty under the Interest Act, but otherwise accepted the plaintiff’s accounting and entitlement to the deficiency.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of World Financial Solutions Inc. for possession and sale of a Toronto property under a collateral mortgage, dismissing the defences, counterclaim, and third party claims of 2573138 Ontario Ltd. and Marguerite Alfred.

The court found the mortgage was in default, rejected arguments of co-venturer status, conspiracy, and improper sale, and ordered a reference for accounting of sale proceeds.

The decision clarifies the application of summary judgment principles in mortgage enforcement and the limits of technical and equitable defences.

The court considered a motion for approval of a contingency fee agreement (CFA) in a medical malpractice action that settled for $14 million.

The litigation guardian challenged the proposed fee of approximately $4.1 million.

The court found the CFA was neither fair when entered into nor reasonable at present due to non-compliance with regulatory requirements and the disproportionate fee relative to the client's damages.

The proposed fee was disallowed, and a reduced fee of $3,250,000, plus HST and disbursements, was ordered, applying a staggered percentage approach.

The applicant, Parkland Corporation, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent Dealer from selling non-Parkland supplied motor fuel from a gas station, in breach of a long-term exclusive supply contract.

The court granted the injunction, finding that Parkland demonstrated a strong prima facie case of breach of a negative covenant, which gives rise to a presumption of irreparable harm.

The balance of convenience strongly favored Parkland, as the Dealer's actions appeared pre-meditated and in bad faith, and Parkland would suffer unquantifiable harm to its commercial control, intellectual property, and business model.

The Dealer's various defenses, including an alleged oral agreement, lack of independent legal advice, and corporate oppression, were dismissed as unlikely to succeed.

The third parties, a lawyer and his professional corporation, moved to strike a third party claim brought against them by the defendants.

The defendants alleged negligence and other torts regarding the lawyer's preparation of a mortgage and subsequent enforcement proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff.

The court struck the claim, finding that opposing counsel owes no duty of care to the defendants, the claims regarding the mortgage were statute-barred, and the claims regarding enforcement proceedings were barred by absolute privilege.

Leave to amend was granted only for claims relating to a specific property transfer.

This decision concerns the costs of an anti-SLAPP motion brought by Eleanor and Patrick Coulson to dismiss a counterclaim by Alexander Muskoka (Gravenhurst) Inc. et al.

The Coulsons' motion was dismissed as they failed to establish the public interest threshold under s. 137.1(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Alexander Muskoka (Gravenhurst) Inc. sought partial indemnity costs.

The court, applying the presumption against costs in s. 137.1(8), declined to award costs to the responding party.

The judge found that the Coulsons had an arguable case, did not bring the motion for improper purposes, and that the counterclaim itself bore hallmarks of a SLAPP.

Consequently, each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

This is a costs decision following the permanent stay of the plaintiffs' main action and third-party proceedings.

The defendants, Paul Gribilas and Peter Gribilas, and the third party, J+W Foods Inc., sought costs as successful parties on dispositive motions.

The plaintiffs argued against costs, claiming a miscarriage of justice given the prior ruling that there were genuine issues for trial.

The court found no miscarriage of justice and applied the normal rule that costs follow the outcome, awarding partial indemnity costs to the Gribilas defendants and full indemnity costs to J+W Foods Inc. based on a contractual provision in a release.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to remove the defendant's lawyer of record, alleging a conflict of interest based on the lawyer's prior involvement in related litigation.

The court found that the lawyer had never met or received confidential information from the moving plaintiff, and that the motion was brought for tactical reasons.

Applying the bright line rule from McKercher, the court concluded there was no conflict of interest and dismissed the motion.

This motion for directions in a settled class action concerned the interpretation of two ambiguous provisions within the settlement agreement related to claims administration.

The court was asked to clarify whether Article 4.3(5) provided a minimum or maximum period for claimants to correct deficiencies and whether Article 4.2(6) required a final assessment of all claims by 60 days post-deadline or merely a status report.

The court adopted the interpretation proposed by Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator, confirming that the Claims Administrator has discretion to grant extensions beyond 30 days for correcting deficiencies and that the 60-day report is a status update, not a final assessment.

The motion was unopposed by the defendants.

The plaintiff, Tracks & Wheels Equipment Brokers Inc., sought summary judgment for specific performance of options to purchase real property.

The defendant, KKP Investments Inc., brought a cross-motion to dismiss or stay the action as an abuse of process and for payment of rent.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment due to the risk of duplicative or inconsistent findings with a related "Main Action" and because it was not advisable in the context of the litigation as a whole.

The defendant's motion to dismiss or stay was also dismissed, as the court found the plaintiff's new action was a matter of form over substance given prior settlement attempts.

The defendant's request for interim rent was withdrawn.

Both actions were ordered to be tried together.

The Applicant sought costs for an application to enforce a Condominium Authority Tribunal order requiring the Respondent condominium corporation to produce records.

Although the Respondent eventually complied with the record production, it did so four months late.

The court found the Applicant was entitled to costs, rejecting the Respondent's arguments based on late compliance and an invalid offer to settle.

Costs were awarded on a full indemnity basis for the period of non-compliance (up to August 1, 2019) and on a partial indemnity basis thereafter, totaling $14,716.91.

The applicant sought an interim injunction to prevent the Town of Caledon from enforcing a work order requiring the removal of 5,500 tonnes of illegal fill from his property, as well as an order of mandamus for document disclosure.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, noting the high hurdle for enjoining a public authority enforcing its by-laws in the public interest.

Finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the Town, the court dismissed the motion for injunctive relief and mandamus.

In a class action settlement regarding Volkswagen diesel vehicles, the plaintiffs brought a motion seeking production of data relating to VW's investigation of post-repair lag and surge issues, and an extension of the claims deadline.

The plaintiffs argued that the Settlement Agreement required disclosure of this data to allow class members to make informed decisions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the lag/surge issue was a safety concern outside the ambit of the Settlement Agreement's provisions on reduced performance.

Consequently, the court held it had no jurisdiction under the settlement to order production of the data or to extend the claims deadline.

In a proposed class action arising from data breaches, the plaintiffs brought a motion seeking production of Yahoo's database of 16.9 million Canadian users to cross-examine the defendants' expert on the certification motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet the onus of explaining how access to the database was relevant to the certification motion and that the request was disproportionate.

The plaintiffs commenced an action for payment under a Cost Sharing Agreement 11 years after the defendant terminated its involvement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to stay their own action in favour of arbitration, while the defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action as statute-barred.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding they could not stay their own proceeding under the Arbitration Act or the Courts of Justice Act.

The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the action was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period and that the plaintiffs were estopped by conduct and laches.

The moving party brought a motion to set aside a default judgment of $189,016.95 obtained by the respondents on their counterclaim.

The underlying dispute involved vendor take-back mortgages related to the purchase of a restaurant, where the moving party alleged the funds were never actually advanced.

Applying the five-part test for setting aside a default judgment, the court found that the delay in bringing the motion was not fatal, there was a plausible excuse for the default, and the moving party had an arguable defence on the merits.

The court concluded that the interests of justice favoured setting aside the default judgment and awarded costs to the moving party.

The Plaintiff appealed a Master's order setting aside a default judgment to the Divisional Court, believing it to be a final order.

The Defendant moved to quash this appeal, arguing the Master's order was interlocutory and thus appealable only to a single judge of the Superior Court.

The Plaintiff also brought a cross-motion to extend the time for appeal to a single judge, should the initial appeal be quashed.

The court determined that an order setting aside a default judgment is interlocutory, not final, and therefore the appeal to the Divisional Court was improper.

The court quashed the Plaintiff's appeal and denied the cross-motion for an extension of time, finding no merit to the proposed appeal as the Master correctly lacked jurisdiction to vary a judge's peremptory order.

The applicant sought an order under the Partition Act compelling the sale of jointly held commercial property.

The respondents resisted, arguing that broader litigation between the parties concerning their business relationship and compensation was already underway and was inextricably connected to the ownership and financial treatment of the property.

The court held that although co‑owners generally have a prima facie right to compel partition or sale, such relief should not be granted where related disputes affecting entitlement remain to be determined.

Because the property formed part of wider disputes over compensation and corporate interests among former business associates, the court concluded that determining the sale issue in isolation would be inappropriate.

The application was consolidated with the existing actions so the property issue could be resolved alongside the broader disputes.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recover amounts owing under a loan agreement.

The defendant admitted the loan in his statement of defence but alleged he signed the agreement under duress and without understanding its legal ramifications.

The defendant did not appear on the motion despite service by mail and email, which the court validated under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the evidentiary record established the debt.

Summary judgment was granted for the outstanding loan amount with contractual interest and substantial-indemnity costs.