Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The self-represented plaintiff, Jennifer Scarangella, brought a motion seeking an order to act in a representative capacity on behalf of the estate of her late partner without a lawyer in a medical negligence action.

The defendants opposed, arguing that Rule 15.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires an estate to be represented by a lawyer and that Rule 2.03 should not be applied to dispense with this requirement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it was not an appropriate case to dispense with the requirement for legal representation, particularly because the issue was raised promptly by the defence and the plaintiff was seeking monetary damages for both herself and the estate, engaging the core rationale of Rule 15.01(1).

The defendants, a law firm and its lawyers, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a $20 million action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence brought by their former clients.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired with the opposing party in a prior wrongful dismissal action and negligently advised them, leading to an improvident settlement.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial.

It held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a conflict of interest or professional negligence, and that the settlement was not improvident given the risks of continued litigation.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff claimed damages for physical and mental injuries suffered as a bystander who witnessed a fatal motor vehicle collision allegedly caused by the defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it was not plain and obvious that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, as Canadian courts have recognized a potential duty of care to bystanders who suffer nervous shock from witnessing horrific accidents.

The moving defendant sought to set aside a noting in default and default judgment obtained against him by the plaintiff bank in an action to enforce a corporate guarantee.

The plaintiff had inadvertently noted the defendant in default before the 20-day deadline to defend had expired.

The court admitted a portion of a settlement-privileged email to assess when the defendant learned of the claim.

Applying the five-factor test, the court found the defendant moved promptly, had a plausible excuse for the default, and raised an arguable misrepresentation defence.

The court set aside the default judgment, concluding it was in the interests of justice to allow the defendant to defend the claim on its merits.

The plaintiff, a debentureholder, sought to bring a class action for oppression against certain shareholders, directors, and officers of Discovery Air Inc. The defendants argued the plaintiff lacked standing due to a 'no-action clause' in the trust indenture, which they claimed required trustee authority or satisfaction of specific preconditions.

The court found that the trust indenture, when read holistically, did not preclude the plaintiff's direct action.

Alternatively, the court determined that the plaintiff had met the preconditions, including the 25% debentureholder support and a reasonable offer of indemnity, despite the trustee's commercially unreasonable demands.

The plaintiff's motion was granted, allowing the oppression action to proceed.

The plaintiff, a former lawyer, sued the investigating police officer, the police services board, and the municipality for negligent investigation after he was charged with fraud, perjury, and obstructing justice.

The criminal charges were ultimately not pursued after a preliminary inquiry was terminated due to an unsworn Information.

The plaintiff claimed the charges destroyed his law practice and caused significant financial losses.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the police officer's investigation met the standard of a reasonable police officer and that there were reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges.

Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's financial losses were caused by other personal and business factors, not the police investigation.

The moving parties (defendants) brought a motion under Rule 21.01(3) to strike paragraphs from the plaintiff's statement of claim, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata and abuse of process due to a prior construction lien action.

The plaintiff had previously obtained a default judgment on a counterclaim in the lien action and now alleged the moving parties stripped the corporate defendant's assets to make it judgment proof.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues of fraud and asset stripping against the personal defendants were not and could not have been adjudicated in the prior lien action, as there was no judgment against the corporate defendant at that time.

The defendants brought a motion in the middle of a jury trial for leave to file a new expert report from a vocational rehabilitation expert.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it would be highly prejudicial as she had already closed her case and her experts had testified.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that allowing the late report would be unfair and prejudicial, an adjournment was impossible due to the jury, and the defendants had long known the basis of the plaintiff's future income loss claim.

The defendants sought costs following a motion regarding a sealing order and restricted production of a document.

The court found that the plaintiff acted unreasonably by refusing to consider an informal proposal and a formal offer to settle that mirrored the eventual order.

The court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis from the date the informal proposal was made.

The applicant sought a vesting order under section 100 of the Courts of Justice Act to extinguish his daughter's joint tenancy interest in a Toronto Islands property so he could add his current wife to the title.

He argued the daughter breached occupancy requirements under the Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act, 1993.

The court dismissed the application, finding it would not be just to grant a vesting order, as the applicant had gifted the interest to his daughter, was actively preventing her from occupying the property, and was attempting to force a sale she did not want.

Following a seven-week personal injury jury trial, the court determined post-trial adjustments to the $2.3 million verdict.

The court ruled that recent Insurance Act amendments increasing statutory deductibles applied retrospectively, but changes to pre-judgment interest did not.

Applying the 'silos of deductibility' approach, the court deducted the plaintiff's $900,000 Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs) settlement from the tort award, but apportioned the deduction 50-50 between the defendant and a non-party driver who had previously settled, matching the jury's liability finding.

The plaintiff's final judgment of $500,827 slightly exceeded the defendant's Rule 49 offer, entitling the plaintiff to costs, which the court fixed at $100,000 plus disbursements.

The defendants brought a motion requesting the case management judge recuse herself, alleging bias, duplicity of proceedings, and involvement in criminal activity.

The moving party failed to attend the hearing of their own motion.

The court found the allegations to be completely unsubstantiated, specious, and devoid of merit, noting that a judge's previous unfavourable ruling is not grounds for recusal.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding party on a full indemnity scale due to the moving party's objectionable conduct.

The plaintiff, Seeta Angel, and her niece, the defendant Monica Beepat, entered into an oral agreement for the purchase and sale of goods to be shipped from Canada to Guyana.

The plaintiff shipped nine shipments of goods, but the defendant only acknowledged an agreement for the first shipment and refused to pay for the rest.

The court found that the parties had an enforceable oral agreement for all nine shipments, preferring the plaintiff's evidence.

The court ordered the defendant to pay $177,444.80 for the goods, less a credit for mitigated goods.

Claims for mental distress, aggravated damages, and punitive damages were dismissed.

The plaintiff contractor was previously found liable by summary judgment for breach of contract and negligence regarding deficient basement waterproofing and property damage, including severing a main hydro line.

In this trial of an issue to assess damages on the defendants' counterclaim, the court rejected the plaintiff's argument for a diminution in value approach, applying the cost of repair.

The court assessed damages for the return of the initial payment, electrical repairs, living expenses, landscaping, and exterior cladding replacement, awarding the defendants $167,201.62.

Following summary judgment in favour of a bank on a personal guarantee for corporate indebtedness, the court determined the costs of the action.

The bank had delivered a written offer to settle under Rule 49 that proposed payment of the principal amounts claimed, reduced interest, and partial indemnity costs.

The court found the offer complied with Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and that the bank achieved a result more favourable than its offer.

Accordingly, the bank was entitled to partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Costs were fixed at $33,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable forthwith by the guarantor defendant.

Cross-motions arose out of enforcement proceedings on an ICC arbitration award against a foreign state, where the judgment creditor sought to garnish embassy-related bank accounts and the foreign state claimed diplomatic immunity.

The court held that a waiver of state immunity under the State Immunity Act did not amount to a complete waiver of diplomatic immunity, and that a certificate issued under the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act could not itself confer immunity over bank accounts where the statute was silent.

Applying customary international law as incorporated into Canadian law, the court held that embassy and consular bank accounts are generally immune from attachment to the extent they are used for sovereign diplomatic or consular functions.

Because the evidentiary record lacked due assurances from a competent authority of the foreign state as to the purpose of the accounts, the court permitted further evidence and submissions.

The plaintiff sought an order staying or adjourning a scheduled trial pending the outcome of an appeal from an earlier interlocutory order dismissing an application related to enforcement of debt acknowledgments.

The plaintiff argued that Rule 63.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure automatically stayed the proceeding, or alternatively that the court should exercise discretion under Rule 63.02(1) to stay the trial.

The court held that Rule 63.01(1) applies only to orders for the payment of money and therefore did not mandate a stay.

Considering the procedural history, repeated adjournments, and the age of the action, the court concluded that the interests of justice favored allowing the trial to proceed despite the pending appeal.

The plaintiffs, Nashaat and Taghreed Aly, claimed a partnership interest in a family grocery business, Nader Halal, operated by Adel Tohamy.

The court found a valid oral agreement from 2001 granting the Alys a 20% interest.

In a related family law application, Adel's former wife, Naiema, sought to set aside two separation agreements that released her claims to the family businesses and spousal support.

The court set aside both agreements under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act due to Adel's deliberate failure to disclose significant assets, unconscionability, and duress.

The court also found the defendants engaged in spoliation of evidence by destroying financial records and ordered the appointment of a receiver over the businesses pending the damages phase of the trial.

Following the dismissal of a third party claim, the third party defendant sought an award of costs.

No responding submissions were filed despite direction from the court.

After reviewing the submissions and the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed costs in favour of the third party defendant.

Costs were ordered payable forthwith by the defendants.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment on a mortgage, the plaintiff sought costs on a full indemnity basis pursuant to the mortgage terms.

The defendant, who was self-represented, declined to provide submissions on costs despite being given the opportunity by the court.

The court considered the legal complexity of the defences raised and the contractual provision providing for substantial indemnity costs.

The court held the amount claimed by the plaintiff was appropriate and ordered the defendant to pay costs in the amount sought.