Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The applicant insurance company brought an application to the Superior Court seeking an order to compel the production of records from non-parties for an ongoing License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) proceeding regarding statutory accident benefits.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the LAT has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes for statutory automobile accident benefits under section 280 of the Insurance Act.

The proper forum to address non-compliance with production orders is at the LAT hearing.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed an Associate Judge's order dismissing their motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the respondents' matrimonial home.

The appellants alleged the transfer of the home from the respondent husband to his wife was a fraudulent conveyance to defeat creditors in an underlying action regarding a condominium development.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Associate Judge correctly applied the Grefford test, properly excluded an affidavit from a separate proceeding, and reasonably concluded the appellants failed to establish a high probability of success in the main action or that the balance of convenience favoured a CPL.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant municipality for negligence and nuisance, alleging that a replacement culvert installed by the municipality caused flooding that damaged their buildings.

The buildings were constructed on the municipality's shore road allowance pursuant to building permits issued decades earlier.

The court found that the new culvert was not the cause of the flooding, as the property had a history of flooding prior to its installation.

Furthermore, the court held that the municipality did not owe a private law duty of care to prevent flooding on its own land, and its decision not to undertake further hydrological studies was a protected policy decision.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant tenant sought to enforce a commercial lease against the respondent, the new owner of the property.

The respondent sought a declaration that the proposed use of the property as a recreational facility contravened the zoning by-law and requested an injunction to prevent its operation.

The court held that the lease was binding on the new owner, as it had notice of the lease.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the lease was frustrated by the zoning by-law, finding no current breach and noting that a rezoning application could be made.

The court granted the applicant's requests for declarations enforcing the lease and dismissed the respondent's application for an injunction as premature.

Following a seven-day trial in which the plaintiff obtained judgment for a trust interest of $560,000 and successfully defended a counterclaim, the court determined the costs of the action.

The court held that neither side established entitlement to enhanced costs consequences under Rule 49 because the offers to settle were inconsistent with the theory advanced at trial or were not more favourable than the result obtained.

The plaintiff was entitled to costs as the successful party on both the claim and counterclaim, but only on a partial indemnity basis.

After reviewing the bills of costs and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, the court fixed costs at $120,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant husband sought to bifurcate family law proceedings, separating professional liability claims (breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of mental distress arising from a prior psychotherapist-patient relationship) from matrimonial claims (divorce, support, and equalization).

The respondent wife opposed bifurcation, arguing the claims were inextricably linked as part of a continuous pattern of coercive control.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that hearing the matters together was more just, efficient, expeditious, and proportionate, particularly given the respondent's intention to testify about the entire relationship in the family law proceeding and the absence of any benefit from a stepwise approach.

The defendants (plaintiffs by counterclaim), Michael Jesse Nash and Terrain Strategic Alliance Inc., brought a motion for default judgment against the plaintiffs (defendants by counterclaim), Hasan Saleemi and Payvault Inc., after the latter's pleadings were struck.

The court found that Nash and Terrain were beneficial owners of 49% of Payvault and qualified as "complainants" under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The court determined that Saleemi and Payvault's actions, including unilateral decisions, locking out access, refusing to issue shares, and personal withdrawals, constituted oppressive and unfairly prejudicial conduct.

Default judgment was granted, the original claim was dismissed, and interim remedies were ordered, including a tracing order and production of financial documents to determine further remedies.

Costs were awarded to Nash and Terrain.

The applicants, Inivos Limited and Warrick Fentiman, brought a motion seeking a civil contempt order against the respondent, Richard Marsh, for allegedly breaching a prior Ontario Superior Court order that recognized and enforced English High Court injunctions prohibiting him from publishing defamatory statements.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the November 7 order was not sufficiently clear and unequivocal to require the respondent to take positive steps to remove pre-existing defamatory content from the internet.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent had actual knowledge of the order's full terms until January 1, 2024, and he posted no new violating material after that date.

The court also stated it would have exercised its discretion to decline a contempt finding, as contempt is a remedy of last resort and there had been substantial compliance since the respondent gained full knowledge of the order.

This case conference addressed a dispute arising from a settled personal injury claim where the plaintiff refused to sign a release containing a "no admission of liability" clause.

The settlement agreement was silent on the specific terms of the release.

The court found that, in the context of an insurance claim where liability was denied throughout, a "no admission of liability" clause is objectively implied by a settlement and is standard in the industry.

The plaintiff was therefore required to sign the release with the impugned clause.

No costs were awarded.

The plaintiff, an investment advisor, brought an action against the defendant, a portfolio manager, for $90,000 based on an alleged agreement to buy out the plaintiff's participation rights in a book of business.

The court found that an email exchange between the parties constituted a binding contract, as the essential terms were agreed upon despite the lack of a formal signed document.

The court also found that the plaintiff's subsequent termination did not frustrate the contract.

Alternatively, the court held that the defendant was unjustly enriched by retaining the financial benefits of the book of business without compensating the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was awarded $90,000 plus pre-judgment interest.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an urgent motion seeking 18 forms of relief, primarily an interlocutory injunction to stay the power of sale of her commercial condominium unit by the defendant condominium corporation.

The corporation had registered a lien and initiated power of sale proceedings due to the plaintiff's failure to pay common element fees.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction as no permanent injunction was sought in the underlying action.

Furthermore, the court held the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction, and dismissed her claims for Mareva and Mills injunctions, as well as her requests to strike the defendants' pleadings.

The defendant condominium corporation brought a motion to stay the plaintiffs' action against it pending mediation and arbitration under the Condominium Act, 1998 and the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The plaintiffs opposed the stay, arguing that the claims against the condominium corporation were intertwined with the claims against the developer and that bifurcating the proceedings would cause duplication and inconsistent verdicts.

The court found that while bifurcation was unreasonable and risked multiplicity, recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence mandated a stay under section 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, as no statutory exceptions applied.

The motion to stay was granted.

The plaintiff brought an undefended motion for summary judgment against the defendants for breach of a vehicle lease agreement.

The defendants stopped making payments and the leased vehicle was subsequently destroyed, with the insurer denying the claim.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, as the evidence of the breach was uncontroverted.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for damages, pre-judgment interest at the contractual rate of 20%, and costs.

The defendant moved under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to set aside a summary judgment previously granted in favour of the plaintiffs after an aborted real estate transaction.

The defendant, who was self-represented at the time, had failed to attend the original summary judgment motion due to injuries from a fall and a motor vehicle accident, but his request for an adjournment had been denied.

Applying the test from Tsaoussis v. Baetz, the court found that the new medical evidence explaining his absence could not have been put forward with reasonable diligence at the time, and that an adjournment would have been granted had the court been aware of the injuries.

The motion to set aside the judgment was granted.

In a medical malpractice action where liability was admitted for birth injuries causing cerebral palsy, the plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment seeking a further advance payment of $600,000 for future care costs.

The defendant objected to the admissibility of the plaintiffs' expert report on procedural grounds.

The court admitted the report to ensure a just determination and granted the partial summary judgment, finding this to be a rare case where an advance payment was appropriate given the admitted liability and the child's significant ongoing needs.

The court ordered the $600,000 payment subject to the parties' experts meeting to agree on the specific care needs to be funded.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's action for a trip and fall on a sidewalk was barred due to insufficient notice under s. 44(10) of the Municipal Act.

The plaintiff had emailed the municipality eight days after the fall, and her roommate provided additional location details the next day.

The court found the notice was sufficient, as it allowed the municipality's adjuster to identify the area and take photographs.

The court also found no prejudice to the municipality and dismissed the motion for summary judgment, ordering the municipality to pay $2,000 in costs.

The plaintiff sought specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property via summary judgment.

The defendant terminated the agreement due to the plaintiff's failure to pay a third deposit.

The plaintiff argued promissory estoppel and that the written agreement did not reflect the true terms.

The court found the plaintiff in breach, rejecting the estoppel argument and the claim that a prior verbal agreement superseded the written contract due to an "entire agreement" clause.

Specific performance was denied as the property was not sufficiently unique.

The action was dismissed, and the plaintiff's deposits were forfeited to the defendant.

The plaintiff drywall contractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant general contractor for the balance owing on a construction contract and for over $1.1 million in alleged extras.

The defendant admitted a portion of the contract balance and a portion of the extras but disputed the remainder, citing delays, deficiencies, and lack of written authorization for the extras.

The court granted partial summary judgment for the $750,641 admitted by the defendant but dismissed the balance of the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence regarding verbal authorizations, design changes, and project delays required a trial.

The applicant commenced an application seeking possession of a property, forfeiture of a $30,000 deposit under an agreement of purchase and sale, and damages arising from alleged vandalism and breach of the agreement.

The respondents argued the property was unsafe and sought to strike the applicant’s affidavit for failure to answer undertakings and refusals from cross-examination, while also seeking return of the deposit.

The court held that credibility disputes and conflicting evidence made the issues unsuitable for determination on the application record.

Pursuant to Rule 38.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the remaining issues of damages and entitlement to the deposit were ordered to proceed to trial and the application was converted into an action.

The deposit was ordered paid into court pending determination by the trial judge.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action sought orders to have a motion for approval of a third party financing and indemnity agreement heard without notice to the defendant, in camera, and with the documents sealed.

They argued that disclosure would compromise solicitor-client privilege and litigation strategy.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the defendant is affected by the funding agreement and entitled to notice and participation.

The court further held that third party funding agreements are not privileged, or if they are, the privilege is waived when applying for court approval.

The open court principle requires the funding motion to be heard publicly, though the court provided specific procedural directions for the future motion.