Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

This supplemental endorsement addresses the court's review of confidential legal account documentation provided by The Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB) in response to an earlier endorsement (Yepes v. Tapia et al., 2023 ONSC 3541).

The court examined the docket entries from January to July 2015, specifically focusing on April 2015, to determine if there were any telephone attendances with opposing counsel, Mr. Millar.

The review confirmed that no such entries existed, and all telephone attendances recorded in April 2015 were with the TVDSB's client.

The confidential material was subsequently destroyed as per the court's directions.

A scheduled three-hour special appointment hearing was adjourned due to a potential conflict of interest identified by counsel.

The court noted that despite the adjournment on consent, the matter was not fully ready for hearing as the plaintiff had not filed a factum and neither party had filed a compendium, both required by practice directions for special appointment hearings.

The endorsement emphasized the necessity of compliance with new mandated procedures for court filings, warning that non-compliance could result in the court declining to hear a matter.

The defendants brought a motion on consent to dismiss the putative class action for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action was commenced in 2011 and had been dormant since 2012, with no certification motion record filed or timetable established.

The court found that the mandatory requirements for dismissal under s. 29.1 were met, as the statutory deadline of October 1, 2021, had passed without any required steps being taken.

The action was dismissed, and plaintiffs' counsel was ordered to bear the costs of providing notice of the dismissal.

The plaintiff, in a wrongful dismissal and age discrimination action, brought a motion to compel answers to discovery refusals and undertakings.

The court ordered the defendant to answer questions regarding the age and termination status of other senior management team members, finding them relevant to the defendant's pleadings.

However, the court dismissed requests for the recruitment file of a replacement executive director and notes from an in camera board meeting, finding the former irrelevant and the latter protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The plaintiffs brought a motion pursuant to Rule 7.08 for approval of a settlement of the claims brought by the minor plaintiffs arising from a motor vehicle accident where the stepfather/father was struck by a vehicle while crossing a pedestrian crosswalk.

The proposed settlement was for $150,000, with $2,500 allocated to each minor plaintiff.

The court considered the liability risks, including the likelihood of contributory negligence and the application of the Family Law Act deductible.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minor plaintiffs, and approved the settlement.

A case conference was held to determine if there were any issues with the timetable for an upcoming motion to determine the legal capacity of William MacLeod.

The court found that the steps set out in the timetable had taken place, no issues arose during cross-examinations requiring immediate attention, and the parties were on track for the scheduled hearing.

The court also directed that issues raised by Mr. MacLeod in a letter could be addressed at the motion itself.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a defamation counterclaim brought by one of the defendants.

The court convened a case conference to determine whether partial summary judgment was appropriate, applying the factors from Malik v. Attia.

The court declined to schedule the summary judgment motion, finding that it would not make the proceeding appreciably cheaper and that there was a risk of inconsistent findings because the main action and the counterclaim shared factual issues regarding allegations of fraud.

The applicant subtenant sought leave under the Solicitors Act to assess a legal account rendered by the respondent law firm to the landlord.

The applicant had agreed to pay the landlord's legal fees as part of a settlement to transfer the lease after defaulting on rent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the application, finding no special circumstances to justify an assessment, as the account was not exorbitant and the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement that required full payment of the legal fees.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 39.02(2) for leave to file affidavits with additional documents after cross-examinations in support of a summary judgment motion to enforce a foreign restitution order.

Applying the Divisional Court framework for late evidence, the court held that although the proposed documents were relevant, the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate explanation for not filing them earlier and had made a strategic choice to confront the defendant with the documents on cross-examination instead of proving them by affidavit.

The court further held that admissibility cannot be ignored in the Rule 39.02(2) analysis, even if the ultimate ruling is left to the motion judge.

Leave was refused, and the court indicated the proposed evidence would have been inadmissible hearsay in any event.

No costs were awarded.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and breach of the duty of good faith.

The dispute centered on whether the parties had reached oral agreements beyond an initial commission fee arrangement for a long-term business relationship involving artificial intelligence technology.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed due to significant credibility disputes between the key witnesses.

The court declined to use its enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04(2.1) because doing so risked inconsistent findings of fact at the subsequent trial.

The plaintiff vendors brought a summary judgment motion against the defendant purchasers for damages arising from a failed residential real estate transaction.

The purchasers had refused to close, arguing that four utility easements registered on title were valid requisitions that the vendors failed to remove.

The court found that the easements were standard minor utility easements explicitly excepted under paragraph 10 of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and were clearly shown on the survey attached to the agreement.

The court granted summary judgment to the vendors, finding the purchasers breached the contract, and awarded $430,000 in damages based on the loss from the property's resale.

The moving party, an employee who drove a tour bus involved in a pedestrian collision, sought to set aside or stay a judgment entered against him.

Unbeknownst to him, his employer's vehicle was uninsured, he was never served with the statement of claim, and the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund had taken over the defence and settled the action for $231,068.

The court declined to set aside the judgment due to the prejudice it would cause the plaintiff and the Fund's statutory framework.

However, the court granted a stay of execution against the employee, finding it would be unjust to enforce the judgment against him given his reasonable belief that the commercial vehicle was insured and his complete lack of knowledge of the litigation.

The appellant law firm appealed a Master's order allowing the assessment of 13 paid accounts for legal services provided to the respondent client.

The Master had found 'special circumstances' justifying the assessment because the client reasonably believed his matters constituted one ongoing retainer and objected to the firm unilaterally paying its accounts from his settlement funds.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the Housen standard of review, found no palpable and overriding errors in the Master's factual findings or application of the law, and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff brought an action for professional negligence against her former lawyers, alleging they mishandled her underlying lawsuit regarding gas leaks in her condominium.

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

The court applied the framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish any breach of the standard of care or that the defendants' actions caused the dismissal of her underlying lawsuit.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought clarification of a previous order granting leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on 'Phase 2 Lots'.

The court clarified that the CPL should apply only to lots 112 to 150, as registering it on additional lots could jeopardize the defendants' financing arrangements.

Any further amounts owing to the plaintiff could be addressed through damages or a future application for additional security.

The plaintiff father brought an action against the defendant company, owned by his son, claiming he was an equal partner based on an oral agreement made 25 years ago when he contributed $18,000 to the purchase of the business.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence unreliable and accepted the defendant's evidence that the money was provided as a gift to help another son immigrate to Canada, not as a business investment.

The claim for unjust enrichment was also dismissed as the funds were a gift.

The action was dismissed without costs.

Following a finding of civil contempt against a respondent and his former solicitor for bartering non-compliance with a document production order, the court held a penalty hearing.

The court refused to allow the contemnors to revisit the initial contempt finding.

Finding that the contemnors' actions resulted in the disappearance of highly relevant documents and deprived the applicant of a fair hearing, the court struck the respondents' responding material and granted default judgment.

To denounce and deter the serious misconduct of bartering compliance with a court order for personal advantage, the court sentenced both the respondent and his former solicitor to 90 days of incarceration.

The defendant moved to set aside a noting in default in a libel action arising from an inaccurate student newspaper article that remained accessible online for years.

Applying the discretionary framework governing relief from default, the court held the claim was not simple, the defendant had consistently manifested an intention to defend, any delay was not inordinate, and the plaintiff had shown no meaningful prejudice beyond having to prove the case on the merits.

The court also found the plaintiff should not have initiated default proceedings without warning known defence counsel.

The noting in default was set aside, leave to file a statement of defence was granted, and no costs were awarded.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the Dow defendants for an alleged price-fixing conspiracy in the market for polyether polyol products.

The court reviewed the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, in light of recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on indirect purchaser claims.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues existed with a plausible methodology for proving class-wide loss, a class action was the preferable procedure, and the plaintiff was a suitable representative.

The motion for certification was granted.

The applicants sought the sale of three groups of commercial properties owned jointly by different branches of the Battista family.

The respondents opposed the open market sale, arguing for a 'Fundamental Understanding' that gave family members a right of first offer or refusal.

The court found no such understanding existed and that the relationship between the family members had irreparably broken down, causing a deadlock in the management of the properties.

The court ordered a court-supervised sale of all properties on the open market without any right of first refusal, allowing all parties to bid.