Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The applicants, Steven Bulut and 1091369 Ontario Inc., sought leave to appeal an arbitral award granting Marko N. Bulut a 50% constructive trust interest in real property.

The court declined to grant leave, finding no error of law in the arbitrator’s application of the law of constructive trust, unjust enrichment, limitation periods, or issue estoppel/abuse of process.

The court also declined to recognize the award under s. 50 of the Arbitration Act at this time, as no application for such relief was before the court and certain matters remained outstanding before the arbitrator.

The plaintiff, a subcontractor, sought default judgment against the defendant Contractor for unpaid invoices related to a construction project.

The Contractor failed to respond to the claim and the motion.

The defendant Owner settled with the plaintiff prior to the case conference.

The court granted default judgment against the Contractor for the outstanding amount of $20,956.50, plus costs, after finding liability based on deemed admissions and evidence.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) brought a motion to pay the net proceeds from a power of sale of a property into court.

The defendant, Guy Lafond, and his former partner, Sherri Van de Hoef, along with the Family Responsibility Office (FRO), claimed entitlement to these funds, primarily for child support arrears.

The court determined the amounts owed to each party and established the priority of claims, with FRO and Ms. Van de Hoef's claims (including costs) taking precedence over RBC's remaining claim.

Due to Mr. Lafond's conduct in disputing the claims and causing adjournments without taking suggested steps, he was ordered to pay the costs of the other parties.

The funds in court were insufficient to fully satisfy all claims, leaving Mr. Lafond personally liable for the deficiency owed to RBC.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce a settlement reached on the eve of trial regarding an estate dispute over a property.

The plaintiffs argued there was no binding agreement as certain terms were not finalized, and disputed the calculation of 'net proceeds of sale', specifically regarding capital gains tax and sale expenses.

The court found that the Minutes of Settlement constituted a binding agreement and enforced it, holding that the objective interpretation of the agreement required the deduction of capital gains tax and shared expenses to determine the net proceeds.

The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident and suffered a spinal fracture.

Liability was admitted by the defendant.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff met the statutory threshold for permanent and serious impairment under the Insurance Act, and assess damages.

The court found significant credibility issues with the plaintiff's evidence, noting he had concealed pre-existing conditions and post-accident activities from his assessors.

Despite these credibility issues, the court accepted expert evidence that the plaintiff suffered a permanent serious impairment consisting of chronic left torso/rib pain and an adjustment disorder.

The court awarded $1,067,647 in total damages, applying substantial percentage reductions to the claimed amounts for loss of earning capacity and future care costs due to the unreliability of the plaintiff's self-reported limitations.

The plaintiffs brought a consent motion for leave to proceed under the Securities Act and for certification of a class action for settlement purposes.

The action alleged secondary market misrepresentations by the defendants regarding a pharmaceutical product.

The court found the criteria for leave to proceed and certification were met, approved the class definition and common issues for settlement purposes, and approved the proposed notices to class members.

The applicants brought three applications against their former business partner and his related corporations, seeking payments under various promissory notes and shareholders agreements related to joint real estate development projects.

The respondents argued that the parties had previously entered into a binding Settlement Agreement that superseded the notes and agreements.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the Settlement Agreement was a binding contract, not merely an agreement to agree, and that the respondents' conduct did not amount to a repudiation that the applicants had accepted.

The court held that the applicants were limited to the payouts and terms agreed upon in the Settlement Agreement.

At a trial management conference, the self-represented defendant requested an adjournment of the peremptory trial date, citing medical issues and lack of counsel.

The court declined to entertain the request without a formal motion on notice.

The court also ordered counsel of record for the corporate defendants, who failed to attend the conference without explanation, to appear at the commencement of trial to show cause why costs should not be awarded against him personally.

The defendant physician in a medical malpractice action moved to strike the jury notice due to trial delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant argued that the 11-year delay and the stress of preparing for trial multiple times warranted proceeding by judge alone virtually.

The plaintiff opposed, citing significant physical and technological challenges with participating in a virtual trial due to his catastrophic spinal cord injuries.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant failed to prove justice would be better served by dispensing with the jury, and adopted a 'wait and see' approach given the anticipated resumption of civil jury trials.

The plaintiffs sought to schedule a case conference for an assessment of damages.

The defendant was incarcerated in British Columbia and had been unreachable for several months.

The court issued a direction scheduling a telephone case conference, requesting the cooperation of the correctional institution to facilitate the defendant's participation, and noting that the conference would proceed whether the defendant participated or not.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Nissan following a data breach where an unknown employee accessed and stole the personal information of thousands of customers, demanding a ransom.

The court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the certification requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court certified common issues relating to vicarious liability for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, negligence, aggregate damages, and punitive damages, while narrowing the proposed class definition.

The plaintiff, Amos Tayts, brought a motion for leave to amend his amended statement of claim.

The defendants opposed specific proposed amendments, categorizing them into claims for breach of 'Zavet Group Terms' and breach of trust after the limitation period, pleadings of evidence, and withdrawal of an admission.

The court granted leave for all proposed amendments, finding that they did not introduce new causes of action after the limitation period, were sufficient for pleading purposes, and constituted necessary particulars rather than mere evidence.

The court reserved the issue of costs thrown away to the trial judge or summary judgment judge, but fixed the costs of the motion at $10,000.00 payable by the defendants to the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion to compel answers to a refused question from the defendant's examination for discovery.

The plaintiffs sought underlying financial source documents to test the defendant's unaudited financial statements, which were relevant to their claims for bonus shares and share valuation.

The Master granted the motion, finding the documents relevant to the pleadings and not disproportionate given the defendant's significant gross revenue, while excluding projections and forecasts for periods after the valuation date.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for certification of a class action, approval of a $1 million settlement agreement, and approval of class counsel's fees and disbursements.

The action alleged misrepresentations in WesternOne Inc.'s public documents regarding a construction project.

The court granted the motion, certifying the action, approving the settlement as fair and reasonable given the litigation risks, and fixing class counsel's fees and disbursements.

The net settlement fund, after deductions, was directed to the Access to Justice Fund via a cy-près payment due to the impracticality and uneconomical nature of direct distribution to individual class members.

The plaintiff, AMA Investments Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for mortgage default.

The defendants disputed the accounting and alleged that the plaintiff's counsel deliberately sabotaged their efforts to obtain refinancing.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the alleged sabotage, concluding that the allegations against counsel were unfounded.

However, the court disallowed a "Post Maturity Fee" claimed by the plaintiff, as it was not referenced in the loan agreement.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for a reduced amount of $313,736.45 plus fixed costs of $12,000.

Following dismissal of an appeal from a master's order requiring a corporate plaintiff to post security for costs, the court addressed a dispute concerning responsibility for the resulting costs award.

The individual plaintiff argued that only the corporate plaintiff should be liable because the appeal formally related to the corporate entity.

The court found that both plaintiffs had advanced the appeal jointly, shared interests in the litigation, and were represented together without distinction in the materials.

Given the joint strategy and unified presentation of claims, the costs order properly applied to both plaintiffs.

The court confirmed that both plaintiffs were jointly responsible for paying the $30,000 costs award to the defendants.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a motion judge’s refusal to grant summary judgment dismissing a professional negligence claim against a solicitor.

The claim alleged that the solicitor failed to advise the plaintiff regarding a limitation period for commencing an action against a disability insurer.

The court considered whether the absence of expert evidence required dismissal of the claim at the summary judgment stage.

It held that expert evidence is not invariably required when the moving party has also failed to file such evidence and the evidentiary record does not permit a full appreciation of the issues.

Leave to appeal was denied because the motion judge reasonably concluded that the factual record required further development at trial.

The plaintiffs moved to amend their statement of claim following a motor vehicle accident to add a municipality as a defendant and to properly name the existing defendant as a person under disability represented by a litigation guardian.

The municipality opposed the amendment on the basis that the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 had expired.

The plaintiffs relied on the discoverability principle, arguing that they did not learn the material facts supporting a claim against the municipality until they obtained police officers’ notes describing hazardous icy road conditions.

The court held that the limitation period began when the plaintiffs ought to have obtained the notes through the exercise of reasonable diligence.

Because the plaintiffs failed to follow up on a request for the notes for several years, the discoverability principle did not extend the limitation period.

Following a trial determining beneficial ownership of a former matrimonial home, the successful applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis exceeding $35,000.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded due to alleged unfairness, financial disparity, litigation conduct, and the nature of the applicant’s settlement offer.

The court rejected most of the respondent’s submissions and confirmed the applicant’s entitlement to costs as the largely successful party.

However, because the applicant did not fully achieve the terms of his settlement offer, the court limited recovery to partial indemnity costs.

After adjusting hourly rates and reducing excessive preparation time, the court fixed costs at $19,000 plus disbursements and taxes.

The applicant and respondents are siblings involved in estate litigation over their mother's will.

The respondents brought a motion to declare valid an agreement among the beneficiaries to sell the deceased's home to one of the respondents at a reduced price, in exchange for caregiving provided before death.

The applicant opposed, arguing he did not read the full agreement, did not obtain independent legal advice, and the agreement was not signed by all parties.

The court found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and held that the essential terms were agreed upon orally and reflected in the written document he signed.

The court declared the agreement valid and binding, and dismissed the applicant's cross-motions for the sale of the property and further disclosure.