Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The plaintiff, Kelly Bainbridge, brought an undefended trial against her landlords for injuries sustained after slipping on snow and ice on the front staircase of her rental unit.

The defendants were noted in default.

The court found the defendants negligent as occupiers under the Occupiers Liability Act, based on deemed admissions and plaintiff's testimony.

The plaintiff was awarded $150,000 for general damages, $635.57 for out-of-pocket expenses, $12,000 for future care costs (cannabis), and partial indemnity costs of $36,058 plus disbursements of $11,000.80.

The defendant brought a threshold motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary damages under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act, arguing her injuries did not meet the "permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function" threshold.

Despite a jury finding the plaintiff 60% liable and the defendant 40% liable, and awarding $40,000 in non-pecuniary damages, the court granted the defendant's motion.

The court found the plaintiff's expert medical evidence unreliable due to incomplete and inaccurate information provided by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's own credibility was significantly undermined by inconsistencies regarding her injuries, activities, and financial situation.

Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish that her injuries met the statutory threshold, and her claim for general damages was dismissed as statute-barred.

The plaintiff, Shai DeLuca, an interior designer and public figure, sued the defendants, Foodbenders and its proprietor Kimberly Hawkins, for defamation.

The defendants had posted and reposted statements on Instagram, including calling DeLuca a "terrorist" and implying he aimed a sniper rifle at Palestinian children, and later calling him a "racist" and "killer." The court found the statements defamatory and rejected the defence of fair comment, primarily due to factual inaccuracies and the defendants' malice.

The court awarded $75,000 in general and aggravated damages and $10,000 in punitive damages, and granted a permanent injunction.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation claim.

The plaintiff, a real estate agent, sued the defendant over articles and comments posted on WeChat regarding the defendant's dissatisfaction with the plaintiff's services during a 2014 home purchase.

The court found that while the expression related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff established that her claim had substantial merit and that there were grounds to believe the defendant had no valid defence.

Furthermore, the court held that the harm suffered by the plaintiff outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendant's expression.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce undertakings and refusals from cross-examinations and for leave to file a supplementary affidavit in the context of an oppression application.

The court held that questions regarding the existence of directors' and officers' insurance policies need not be answered, as the rules compelling disclosure of insurance in actions do not apply to applications where discovery is not available.

However, questions regarding the corporation's financial statements were ordered to be answered.

The court also granted the applicant leave to file a supplementary affidavit based on newly disclosed financial information.

The plaintiff brought and subsequently abandoned a motion for summary judgment in a breach of contract action regarding renovation services.

The defendants sought costs for the abandoned motion forthwith.

The plaintiff argued costs should be deferred to trial as the work done would be useful later.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs forthwith, finding it unfair to defer costs to a trial that might not occur.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $5,713.50, as there was no evidence the plaintiff acted unreasonably or in bad faith to justify substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in a class action.

The defendants sought $255,707.13, while the plaintiffs argued for no costs or $75,000, citing public interest and novel legal issues.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no public interest dimension as no losses were sustained and the defendant reacted responsibly to the cyber-hack.

The court also found the legal issues not novel, despite involving a cyber-attack, as similar incidents have led to numerous class actions.

Applying its established approach to costs in certification motions, the court adhered to the Grid rates for hourly fees, explicitly rejecting the defendants' argument for 60% of actual rates.

After considering a Grid-compliant outline of $176,459 and a 10% reduction for additional work attributed to the defendant, the court fixed an all-inclusive costs award of $160,000 to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a status hearing to establish a timetable for an action commenced in 2008, which the defendants opposed, seeking dismissal for delay.

Applying the two-part test from Faris v. Eftimovski, the court required the plaintiff to provide an acceptable explanation for the litigation delay and demonstrate that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

The Master found the plaintiff had met this burden, noting consistent efforts to advance the case despite its age and a lack of actual prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was granted, and a detailed timetable was ordered for the remaining steps, including discovery, mediation, and setting the action down for trial.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs following successful summary judgment motions.

The defendant's motion was unsuccessful, while the plaintiff's was successful, with findings that the defendant's words were untrue, unwithdrawn, and demonstrated malice.

The plaintiff sought elevated costs, citing the defendant's unreasonable conduct and bad faith, and more favourable settlement offers.

The court found no unreasonableness or bad faith in the defendant's cross-motion or delay, and the plaintiff's settlement offers were not Rule 49 compliant.

However, considering the defendant's demonstrated malice and failure to apologize, the court awarded reasonably generous partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff advanced $90,000 to his daughter and son‑in‑law following the sale of his home.

The court held that equity presumes bargains rather than gifts and found the defendant failed to rebut the presumption that the advance was a loan.

However, the court determined that the loan constituted a demand obligation created prior to January 1, 2004, making the former six‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act applicable.

Because the claim was issued more than six years after the date of advancement and there had been no acknowledgment of the debt or payment to extend the limitation period, the claim was statute‑barred.

The action was dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence against a lawyer who discharged their mortgages without authorization, claiming they had never met the lawyer or signed discharge authorizations.

The lawyer maintained that the plaintiffs attended his office, produced identification, and executed written authorizations.

The court evaluated conflicting testimony, contemporaneous documentation, and the lawyer’s standard practice for client identification.

Finding the lawyer’s evidence more credible and supported by photocopies of the plaintiffs’ identification and witnessed signatures, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had likely attended and authorized the discharges or, alternatively, that the lawyer had exercised reasonable care consistent with the applicable standard.

The plaintiffs also failed to prove the alleged outstanding mortgage advances.

The negligence claim was dismissed.

In consolidated family and estates proceedings arising from an elderly mother's transfer of Trinidad property to one son, the court dismissed the son's attempt to stay an earlier order requiring reconveyance and an accounting.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the son wilfully failed to comply with the prior order and was in civil contempt, although his contempt was later purged when he signed the transfer in court.

The court also struck his separate action against siblings without leave to amend as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, constituting an abuse of process, and being statute-barred.

A guardianship application respecting the mother's property was adjourned because mandatory service requirements had not been satisfied and a less restrictive alternative might be available.

Following an undefended trial in a negligence action arising from a slip and fall on a residential driveway, the court addressed the issue of costs after releasing its reasons for judgment.

The successful plaintiff sought recovery of legal fees and disbursements.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and the factors in Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court noted that a successful party is generally entitled to costs absent compelling reasons to deny them.

The court characterized the matter as relatively straightforward and allowed partial indemnity fees of $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements of $27,512.32 inclusive of HST.

In a professional negligence action arising from accounting advice regarding eligibility for Canadian Controlled Private Corporation status, the defendant accountants moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim.

The defendant also brought a third party claim against the plaintiffs’ solicitors alleging negligent misrepresentation and seeking contribution and indemnity.

The court held that the accounting negligence claim involved complex factual disputes, credibility issues, and professional standards unsuitable for determination on summary judgment and therefore required a trial.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the third party claim against the solicitors, finding no duty of care and no reasonable reliance by the accountants on the solicitors’ confirmations regarding a shareholders’ agreement.

The contractor responsible for snow and ice maintenance brought a motion for summary judgment arguing that both the plaintiffs’ slip-and-fall claim and the co-defendants’ cross‑claim were barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that a genuine issue requiring trial existed regarding discoverability of the contractor by the plaintiffs, given evidence that counsel made inquiries with the insurer and was told no other maintenance contractor existed.

However, the cross‑claim for contribution and indemnity by the condominium owner and manager was statute‑barred because they had actual knowledge of the contractor’s involvement and were served with the statement of claim more than two years before asserting the claim.

Summary judgment was therefore granted dismissing the cross‑claim but denied regarding the plaintiffs’ main action.

The plaintiffs brought a civil action alleging malicious prosecution, defamation, and slander after the defendant reported alleged assaults and threats to police, resulting in criminal charges that were later withdrawn following peace bonds.

The plaintiffs sought general and special damages and additional damages under the Family Law Act for the children.

The court found that although the police reports and charges occurred, the evidence was conflicting and insufficient to determine whether the alleged incidents actually happened.

The court also found no reliable evidence of reputational damage, loss of employment, or actionable defamatory publication beyond communications made to authorities and professionals.

In the absence of proof supporting the elements of defamation or malicious prosecution, the claims were dismissed.

Following a prior motion decision, the court addressed written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought costs of both the motion and an earlier assessment before an Assessment Officer.

The court declined to determine the costs of the earlier assessment, holding that such submissions should have been made to the Assessment Officer who conducted the hearing.

Exercising discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and considering the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the applicant entitled to costs of the motion.

Partial indemnity costs of $7,992 plus HST and disbursements were awarded as fair, reasonable, and proportionate.

Following the granting of summary judgment dismissing the action, the successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing that the motion judge should not fix costs due to affidavit evidence, that elevated costs were unwarranted, and that costs should be limited to the summary judgment motion rather than the entire action.

The court rejected these submissions, holding that the judge retained discretion to fix costs and that summary judgment terminating the action justifies assessing costs of the entire proceeding.

The court found the litigation was aggressively pursued without evidentiary foundation and contained serious unfounded allegations affecting the defendant’s reputation.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded.

The plaintiff equipment leasing company brought a motion for summary judgment alleging fraud arising from equipment leases entered into with corporate defendants and individuals.

The plaintiff claimed it was induced by false representations to purchase and lease heavy construction equipment, much of which was not recovered after the leases went into default.

One individual defendant asserted she signed documents under the direction of another individual and lacked knowledge of the alleged misrepresentations, raising credibility issues.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not permit a full appreciation of the issues regarding that defendant and required a trial.

However, partial summary judgment was granted against the other individual defendant, who had not defended the action, for the liquidated damages amount.

Following a successful motion by the defendant to enforce a settlement agreement dismissing the action without costs, the court determined the appropriate costs of the motion.

The court found the motion had been unnecessary because the plaintiff provided no affidavit evidence explaining or disputing the settlement offer made by counsel.

While the defendant sought higher costs, the court declined to award costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Instead, costs were fixed on a partial indemnity scale.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant $2,700 all-inclusive.