Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The plaintiff slipped and fell in a grocery store parking lot on January 6, 2015.

She commenced an action against the store on January 5, 2017, and a separate action against the snow removal contractor on October 13, 2017.

The contractor brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to rebut the statutory presumption that she discovered her claim on the date of the fall, and alternatively, that a reasonable person would have discovered the claim within six months.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff, in her personal capacity and as an estate trustee, brought an action against her brothers and several family corporations, alleging oppression, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty regarding a 2002 estate freeze and the distribution of mortgage proceeds.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court found that the estate freeze was validly implemented and that the distribution of the mortgage proceeds was a reasonable business decision.

The court dismissed the majority of the plaintiff's claims, finding no evidence of oppression, but ordered the corporate defendants to hold annual shareholder meetings, appoint an auditor, and retain independent counsel.

During a trial, the defendants sought an order under Rule 53.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to tender the evidence of a software company representative by affidavit.

The plaintiffs objected, arguing the evidence was contentious and required cross-examination.

The court dismissed the request, finding the defendants failed to establish the evidence was uncontentious and noting the witness was available to testify virtually.

The moving party, former counsel for the applicant, brought a motion for a charging order pursuant to section 34 of the Solicitors Act for unpaid legal fees.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing there was no evidence to justify the order.

The court applied the three-part test for a charging order and found that the property was preserved through the law firm's instrumentality and that the applicant had no intention of paying the outstanding fees.

The motion was granted and costs were awarded to the moving party.

The defendants, Morteza Katebian and Payam Katebian, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with three prior costs orders, including an order for additional security for costs.

The plaintiff argued the action had considerable merit, they were impecunious, and funds were frozen due to ongoing litigation.

The court found the plaintiff's claim of considerable merit unconvincing and their impecuniosity argument belated.

While acknowledging the severity of dismissal, the court granted the plaintiff a final opportunity until April 1, 2021, to comply with the outstanding costs orders, failing which the defendants could move for dismissal without notice.

The applicant and respondents were business partners who co-owned a property.

The applicant defaulted on a second mortgage, which was subsequently assigned to a corporation owned by one of the respondents.

The corporation initiated power of sale proceedings.

The applicant sought an urgent injunction to stay the sale, arguing he was owed money from other business ventures and wanted an accounting before paying the mortgage.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant admitted the debt, failed to meet the RJR-MacDonald test for an injunction, and could not use section 12 of the Mortgages Act to achieve Mareva-type relief.

The plaintiffs sought to settle an order approving a Pierringer Agreement with the settling defendants.

A non-party insurer, who was a defendant in a separate action brought by one of the plaintiffs, objected to the wording of the order, arguing it would affect its rights.

The court held that the non-party insurer had no standing to object to the order in this action and signed the draft order as agreed to by the parties.

The court issued a protective order on consent of the parties in a case involving allegations of appropriation and misuse of confidential technical and business information.

The order governs the handling and protection of confidential documents and information exchanged during discovery, requiring advance notice before filing such materials in court, but explicitly stating it does not constitute a sealing order or publication ban.

The court also provided specific case management directions for the litigation.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order granting the defendants' motion for security for costs in an action for negligent investigation, wrongful arrest, and malicious prosecution.

The plaintiff argued the Master erred in granting leave to bring the motion after the action was set down for trial and in ordering security for costs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Master's decision to grant leave or in the conclusion that the defendants had a good defence on the merits and the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets to satisfy a costs award.

The plaintiff in a defamation action brought a motion under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike various paragraphs of the defendant's fresh as amended statement of defence.

The plaintiff argued the paragraphs did not comply with the rules of pleading and were irrelevant, repetitive, and improper.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the impugned paragraphs generally complied with the rules of pleading and that a pleading must be read generously and not subjected to a standard of perfection.

Lang Michener LLP was entirely successful on a motion and counterclaim for professional fees against Gregory P. King.

The counterclaim involved serious allegations against senior counsel and sought indemnity for an Italian judgment, making it a substantial and complex piece of litigation.

The court fixed Lang Michener's costs of the motion and counterclaim at $45,000, applying the proportionality principle and considering the seriousness and complexity of the issues.

The respondent brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the applicant's application as frivolous and vexatious.

The court, finding the application potentially frivolous, ordered the registrar to issue a notice to the applicant to make submissions against dismissal, stayed the application pursuant to s.106 of the Courts of Justice Act, and restricted further filings pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The defendants' motion for security for costs was returned to the Master after a successful appeal.

The appeal judge found the Master erred by failing to consider the quality of the plaintiff's only asset, a $100,000 cash deposit held by the defendants, which could easily be transferred out of Ontario once returned.

The Master ordered the defendants to return the deposit (less a $5,000 holdback) and ordered the plaintiff to immediately post $65,000 as security for costs, noting the plaintiff was a shell corporation and the cash would likely be transferred to its parent company.

The defendant, Wikwemikong Nursing Home, brought a motion to transfer the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action from Toronto to Gore Bay, Manitoulin Island.

The court considered the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that the substantial part of the events, the subject matter, and local community interest strongly favoured Gore Bay.

Despite the plaintiff's personal circumstances and damages being sustained in Toronto, the overall convenience of witnesses and the operational requirements of the defendant's long-term care home also supported the transfer.

The court granted the defendant's motion, concluding that the interests of justice required the transfer to Gore Bay.

A property owner sued purchasers for breach of an alleged agreement permitting the return of chattels after the sale of reserve land and buildings.

The court interpreted the written land and chattels agreement and found that ownership of all chattels transferred to the purchasers once the down payment was made.

An alleged later amendment involving waiver of mortgage interest was found unenforceable because the parties lacked consensus ad idem.

The court further found the vendor engaged in a prolonged campaign of harassment, intimidation, and attempts to evict the purchasers after the sale.

General and punitive damages were awarded to the defendants for harassment and mental distress.

A farmer sued his insurance broker alleging negligence for failing to obtain insurance coverage for collapse of a tarp barn due to snow load.

Both parties brought competing motions for summary judgment.

The court held that the broker breached its duty of care by failing to adequately advise the client about coverage and foreseeable risks.

However, the plaintiff failed to prove causation because the evidence did not establish that the collapse was more likely than not caused by snow load rather than other possible causes such as wind, design flaws, or construction defects.

As a result, the plaintiff could not establish that the broker’s breach caused the loss.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its summary judgment motion in a personal injury action arising from an assault that occurred after the plaintiff left a restaurant.

The proposed appeal argued that no duty of care was owed and that the harm was not reasonably foreseeable, particularly because the assault occurred off-premises.

Applying r. 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held there was no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order under appeal.

The court further held that it was not appropriate at this interlocutory stage to grant leave merely to obtain appellate guidance on the law, where the matter would proceed to trial.

The parties sought a determination of costs following a seven-day trial that resulted in a net judgment of $24,894.87 for the defendants on their counterclaim.

The defendants sought $80,000 in costs, while the plaintiff argued for no costs due to mixed success and the defendants' failure to admit facts.

The court found that success was mixed, the trial was unnecessarily prolonged, and the costs sought were disproportionate to the recovery.

The court ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.

In a defamation action arising from letters published in a newspaper criticizing veterinary services, the defendants brought a motion seeking production of additional documents before examinations for discovery.

The court considered the relevance and proportionality of the requested records under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

It ordered production of appointment records for the key date, client files relating to 33 clients allegedly lost due to the publication, and financial and client records underlying the plaintiffs’ damages expert report.

Requests for predecessor financial records and a mailing list were denied as premature or irrelevant.

The court rejected claims of confidentiality over client records due to lack of evidence establishing privilege and ordered the plaintiffs to serve a fresh affidavit of documents and proceed under a litigation timetable.

The plaintiff brought a negligence action after suffering a fractured shoulder in a fall at a restaurant step leading into a private party room.

The court considered the occupier’s duty of care under s. 3(1) of the Occupier’s Liability Act and whether the restaurant took reasonable steps to ensure patrons were safe.

Evidence showed staff failed to follow established protocols for escorting guests and warning them about the step, and the step lacked illumination or other safety features.

The court found the warning sign inadequate and concluded the occupier breached its statutory duty.

However, the plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for failing to watch where she was walking as she approached the step.

General damages of $50,000 and limited special damages were awarded, reduced by contributory negligence.