Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The court considered whether Ontario had jurisdiction over a claim by Grand HVAC Leasing Ltd. against four Alberta-based defendants who guaranteed the obligations of Boaz Pharmaceuticals Inc. under equipment leases.

The court found that the guarantees were not made in Ontario, and that there was no real and substantial connection between Ontario and the dispute.

Even if jurisdiction existed, the court would have stayed the action in favour of Alberta as the more appropriate forum.

The claim was stayed, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction and a Norwich Order against the Defendants, alleging fraud and misappropriation of approximately $700,000 in foreign currency reserves.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, irreparable harm, and a serious risk of asset dissipation by the Defendants.

Consequently, the Mareva injunction was granted to restrain the Defendants from dissipating assets, and a Norwich Order was issued compelling financial institutions to disclose information for asset tracing.

The Plaintiffs' alternative request for a Certificate of Pending Litigation was not addressed given the primary relief granted.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment to enforce repayment of a $250,000 loan agreement.

The defendant opposed, arguing the loan was modified by oral agreements and that the plaintiff's son had diverted the wood flooring intended as security.

The defendant also issued a counterclaim against the plaintiff, his son, and related corporate entities.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues were inextricably connected to the counterclaim and that a trial was required to resolve complex factual disputes and credibility issues.

The applicants entered into an agreement to purchase a property from the respondent.

Prior to closing, the applicants' lawyer discovered open building permits and an active investigation by the municipality, and requisitioned that they be resolved.

Due to delays, including those related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the respondent was unable to resolve the issues or discharge certain encumbrances by the closing date.

The applicants refused an extension and demanded the return of their deposit.

The court held that the requisitions were valid matters of conveyance and requisitions simpliciter.

Because the respondent acted in good faith but could not satisfy the requisitions, the applicants were entitled to the return of their deposit, but not to damages.

The applicant sought disclosure of medical and legal records relating to her late mother's estate, alleging suspicious circumstances and lack of capacity surrounding a 2015 will that disinherited her.

The executor provided evidence that the mother changed her will after discovering the applicant had improperly transferred joint investment accounts while acting as her attorney for property.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold required to put the estate to the burden of proving the will in solemn form.

The applicant sought a declaration of ownership by adverse possession over a portion of the respondent's land, as well as an order to remove a fence and trees.

The respondent argued the application was an abuse of process because the applicant had previously brought a similar claim in 2017, which was dismissed.

The court agreed with the respondent, finding that the issue of adverse possession over the subject lands had already been determined in the prior action, where it was established that the previous owners had no intention to exclude the true owners.

The application was dismissed on the basis of res judicata.

The plaintiffs, unpaid contractors on a home building project, brought a motion in two related actions for four orders: to transfer one action from Toronto to Newmarket, to amend their statements of claim to add defendants and allege fraudulent conveyances, to register certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) on the impugned properties, and for summary judgment against the corporate builder.

The court granted the venue transfer and summary judgment on consent.

The court also granted leave to amend the pleadings, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

However, the court dismissed the motion for CPLs, concluding that the plaintiffs' evidence regarding the fair market value of the properties was methodologically flawed and failed to establish a prima facie case of intent to defeat creditors.

The plaintiff alleged injuries from a slip and fall on a sidewalk and commenced an action against the City of Toronto and the registered owner of the adjacent property, Maria Naccarato.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiff learned Maria Naccarato had died years prior and her son, Joe Naccarato, was the executor and occupier of the property.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to substitute Joe Naccarato as a defendant.

The court granted the motion, finding the pleading constituted a misnomer, the intended defendant had timely notice, and there was no non-compensable prejudice.

This motion concerned the approval of a Memorandum of Agreement between the receiver of the Norshield entities, appointed by the Ontario Superior Court, and the class representative of a Québec class action.

The agreement sought to facilitate the production of information from the receiver to the class representative for use in the Québec class action.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), a defendant in the Québec class action, opposed the motion, arguing that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction to approve what amounted to a non-party discovery in a Québec proceeding.

The court found that RBC had standing to oppose the motion and dismissed the class representative's request, ruling that the Superior Court of Québec, as the class action judge, was the appropriate forum to determine the relevance and necessity of the information sought.

Following an obstetrical malpractice trial where the jury found the defendant obstetrician 32% liable for the infant plaintiff's severe cerebral palsy, the defendant brought a motion under Rule 52.08 to dismiss the action or order a retrial.

The defendant argued the jury gave conflicting answers on causation and that there was no evidence to support their findings on the standard of care and delay in delivery.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the jury's use of the word 'contributed' did not conflict with the 'but for' causation test, and that there was ample expert evidence supporting the jury's conclusion that the defendant's failure to promptly prepare for an emergency c-section caused the infant's brain damage.

Judgment was ordered to be entered in accordance with the jury's verdict.

The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction freezing the assets of the defendant, a former senior manager who allegedly misappropriated funds and started a competing business.

On the return of the motion, the court reviewed the evidence de novo.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case of fraud, as the defendant provided reasonable explanations for the impugned credit card charges and tax defaults.

Furthermore, the defendant's decision to sell his home was made prior to being served with the claim and was for the purpose of downsizing, not dissipating assets.

The Mareva injunction was set aside.

The plaintiff brought a motion to turn a second action against his real estate agents into a third party proceeding in his main action against the vendors for a failed real estate transaction, or alternatively to consolidate the actions.

The defendants opposed, arguing the motion was premature and should wait until their summary judgment motions were heard.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that leave to issue a third party claim is mandatory unless prejudice results, and the defendants would not be prejudiced by correcting the procedural error of commencing a separate action.

The plaintiffs moved to remove the defendant's designated representative for examination for discovery, Peter Hill, due to an irreconcilable conflict of interest.

Hill had a lucrative consulting contract with one of the incumbent telecommunications providers whose conduct was central to the action, and his contract required him to prefer his client's interests.

The court found that Hill's contractual obligations and his evasive testimony during discovery demonstrated a preference for the incumbent's interests over his duties as a witness, rendering him a demonstrably unsatisfactory representative.

The motion was granted, and Hill was ordered to be replaced by Kelly Gillis or another suitable witness.

The court issued amended reasons for decision to address three issues raised by the parties following the release of the original decision.

The court suspended its previous decision on costs to allow the responding party to make written submissions, provided directions for settling the order, and clarified that there was no omission in the order regarding costs against a third party.

Apotex brought a motion to amend its pleadings in an ongoing patent dispute over the drug Lansoprazole.

Following the Supreme Court's rejection of the 'Promise Doctrine' in AstraZeneca, Apotex sought to recast its previous Promise Doctrine allegations as claims of insufficiency, overbreadth, and fraud under sections 27 and 53 of the Patent Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendments were legally untenable and merely repackaged the defunct Promise Doctrine.

Furthermore, the court held that the fraud allegations lacked the strict particularity required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and awarded elevated costs to the respondents.

Blackjet Inc. sought summary judgment against Skyline Investments Inc. et al. for unpaid marketing fees under an Agency Agreement.

The defendants disputed the amount, alleging double-billing and Blackjet's breach of contract for failing to provide monthly reconciliations and appoint an account manager.

The court granted summary judgment, finding some double-billing by Blackjet but dismissing the defendants' breach of contract claim as they had waived their right to enforce it.

Blackjet was awarded a reduced amount for unpaid fees and late payment fees, along with pre- and post-judgment interest.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for alleged Charter breaches, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff argued for no costs on the basis that the case was pursued in the public interest.

The defendant sought a modest costs award, noting the plaintiff's decision to traverse the action from Small Claims Court to the Superior Court and his rejection of two Rule 49 offers to settle.

The court awarded the defendant $25,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, taking into account the early offers to settle and the plaintiff's assumption of risk.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's claims against her late husband's estate, the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging reprehensible conduct by the applicant.

The court found that the applicant's conduct, including her vigorous pursuit of the claim and her testimony regarding the marriage contract, did not amount to reprehensible conduct justifying elevated costs.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs, fixing the amount at $75,000 inclusive of disbursements, plus HST.

Following the dismissal of a summary judgment motion concerning unpaid invoices and an equitable counterclaim, the court determined the appropriate costs order.

The responding party sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $36,000.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs under Rule 20.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure require unreasonable conduct or bad faith, neither of which was established.

Given that the summary judgment motion had merit and was described as a close call, the court ordered that costs be in the cause and fixed them at $12,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff brought an action against the Ottawa Police Services Board and two unnamed officers for trespass, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and misfeasance in public office after police entered her townhouse to execute an arrest warrant for her former boyfriend.

During the entry, the police shot and killed the plaintiff's two pit bulls and caused significant property damage.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the police entered under a valid warrant and authorization, and were protected from liability by section 25 of the Criminal Code because they acted on reasonable grounds and used no more force than necessary in a high-risk situation.