Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The plaintiff brought a $17 million action against the Crown, alleging negligent investigation, intentional infliction of mental suffering, breach of privacy, defamation, and Charter breaches arising from the OPP's response to her complaints about suspicious vehicles and trespassers.

The Crown moved for summary judgment.

The court found that the OPP investigated the complaints thoroughly and reasonably concluded no criminal activity occurred.

The court held that the police do not owe a private law duty of care to victims of crime for negligent investigation, and the plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting her other claims.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the Crown on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk in December 2016 and sued the municipality and builder in October 2018.

In the fall of 2019, the plaintiff learned the municipality had hired a private winter maintenance contractor and commenced a separate action against the contractor in December 2019.

The contractor moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the contractor failed to meet its initial burden of showing that a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position ought to have discovered the claim against the contractor more than two years before the action was commenced.

The defendants brought separate motions to strike the plaintiffs' action under Rule 21.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the motions because they had a pending motion for leave to amend the statement of claim.

The court granted the adjournment, finding that it would be inefficient to proceed with the motions to strike before the motion to amend was decided.

Both motions were adjourned to be heard together, with costs thrown away awarded to one of the defendants.

The plaintiff solar energy company brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant homeowners for breach of a 20-year Solar Development Lease Agreement.

The defendants had terminated the agreement and redirected revenue payments to themselves after the plaintiff refused to pay the registration costs for postponing its security interest to allow the defendants to refinance their property.

The court found that the plaintiff had no obligation to pay the postponement costs and that the defendants breached the agreement by diverting the revenue.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff, with a reference ordered to determine the quantum of damages.

The defendants in a 15-year-old class action regarding the federal government's response to the mad cow disease crisis brought a motion to adjourn the peremptory trial date of January 18, 2021, to September 2021.

They cited difficulties preparing due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the late delivery of supplementary expert reports by the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the motion for a lengthy adjournment, finding that the parties were well-resourced to conduct a virtual trial and that the late expert reports were responsive to the defendants' own late productions.

The trial commencement was postponed by two weeks to February 1, 2021, to allow for the completion of remaining pre-trial steps.

The representative plaintiff in a certified class action regarding the introduction of Mad Cow Disease into Canada brought a motion for approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement.

The court applied the four-factor test for approving such agreements and found that the funding was necessary for access to justice, made a meaningful contribution, protected the defendant's interests, and did not overcompensate the funder.

The court approved the agreement and pre-approved the funder's return of up to 10 percent of any recovery.

The Plaintiffs, minority shareholders, moved for summary judgment against the Defendants, majority shareholders and a related corporation, alleging breaches of a shareholders' agreement and oppressive conduct under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The Defendants failed to respond to the motion.

The court found that the Defendants had treated the Plaintiffs oppressively, breached the shareholders' agreement by selling property without consent, disbursing funds improperly, and failing to transfer shares despite receiving payment.

The court granted declarations of oppressive conduct and breach of agreement, ordered specific share redemptions, reimbursement for mortgage payments, and joint and several liability for the Defendants.

The Defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.

Punitive damages were denied due to insufficient notice, but full indemnity costs were awarded to the Plaintiffs due to the Defendants' oppressive conduct and lack of viable defense.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a contested motion where the defendants successfully obtained independent medical examinations, but on terms largely advocated by the plaintiff.

The court found success was divided, with the plaintiff being "more successful" on the central issue of the conditions for the medical assessments, particularly regarding "ghostwriting" concerns.

Applying Rule 57, the court awarded the plaintiff partial fixed costs, acknowledging the legitimate differences of opinion on novel issues.

The defendants brought a motion seeking the production of the plaintiff's adverse cost insurance policy (ACP) during discovery.

The plaintiff resisted, arguing that only particulars of the policy were required and that the policy itself was not relevant to the issues in dispute.

The court, interpreting Rule 30.02(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, held that the rule mandates disclosure and production for inspection of any insurance policy that may indemnify a party for money paid in satisfaction of a judgment, including an ACP, regardless of its direct relevance to the substantive issues of the action.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to produce the policy.

The plaintiff landlord sought default judgment against the defendant tenant for unpaid rent and damages after the tenant abandoned the commercial premises.

The court awarded net damages for lost revenue and unpaid rent, but dismissed the claim for additional damages related to the alleged fraudulent removal of goods due to insufficient evidence of civil fraud.

The court also granted an amendment to add the tenant's operating name as a defendant and awarded costs.

The defendant sought to invoke Rule 2.1.01 to summarily dismiss a professional negligence action alleging negligent appellate advocacy.

The court held that Rule 2.1 is reserved for proceedings that are clearly frivolous, vexatious, or abusive on their face and is not appropriate where a real dispute exists between the parties.

The defendant improperly filed extensive written submissions and unsworn documentary materials rather than following the requisition procedure under Rule 2.1.01(6).

The pleadings disclosed a clear cause of action and nothing indicated that the plaintiff was a vexatious litigant.

The court declined to proceed under Rule 2.1 and criticized the defendant’s attempt to advance factual and legal arguments supported by unsworn materials.

The defendant bank moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claim and granting its counterclaim for outstanding loan balances and possession of the mortgaged property.

The plaintiffs alleged a bank teller misappropriated a cash payment, claiming this fundamental breach extinguished their debt obligations.

The court found no evidence that a cash payment was made, concluding the teller merely made a transactional error that caused no loss.

Finding no genuine issue for trial, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim and granted summary judgment to the bank on its counterclaim.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment and to strike the plaintiffs’ action alleging damages arising from alleged unpaid commissions and wrongful conduct in terminating an insurance producer agreement.

The court found the claim was commenced well beyond the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff argued that psychiatric illness rendered him incapable of commencing proceedings, but the evidence, including medical records and his own conduct, did not establish incapacity sufficient to suspend the limitation period.

The court also held that the pleadings failed to disclose reasonable causes of action for mental distress damages, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of good faith, punitive damages, or loss of business.

The motion was granted and the action dismissed without leave to amend.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs’ statement of claim or alternatively for further particulars.

The claim alleged copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, interference with contractual relations, unjust enrichment, and misappropriation of goodwill relating to software and a business method used in contact centre management.

The court held that the pleading of copyright infringement was deficient because it failed to plead the chain of title and did not clearly identify the copyrighted works or the assignment or grant of rights required under the Copyright Act.

That portion of the claim was struck with leave to amend.

The remaining causes of action were sufficiently pleaded and the request for further particulars was dismissed.

Following dismissal of the action for delay, the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs based on allegations of fraud made against them and the plaintiff’s delay in prosecuting the action.

The court rejected the argument that the action itself constituted an abuse of process merely because a prior action existed, noting the claims were not identical and the matter had not been decided on its merits.

However, the court found the plaintiff’s delay in prosecuting the action was contumelious, inexcusable, and unexplained, which justified an elevated costs award.

Substantial indemnity costs were therefore awarded to the defendants despite the absence of a trial on the merits.

The court also noted that while a Rule 49 offer had been served, the award of substantial indemnity costs made it unnecessary to determine whether that offer independently justified enhanced costs.

Following a prior contempt-related order requiring the defendants to make a stipulated payment into court, the defendants failed to comply and provided no explanation or request for an extension.

The court considered the appropriate sanction for the ongoing non-compliance.

Concluding that the defendants’ conduct was an attempt to disrupt and undermine the proceedings, the court struck the defendants’ statement of defence and counterclaim without leave to amend.

The plaintiffs were permitted to note the defendants in default and move for judgment.

Costs were reserved to be determined together with any motion for judgment.

Following the dismissal of motions seeking to declare several construction liens expired under s. 37(1) of the Construction Lien Act, the court addressed costs.

The moving defendant argued no costs should be awarded due to the alleged novelty of the statutory interpretation issue, while the lien claimants sought substantial indemnity costs citing a Rule 49 offer and the defendant’s litigation conduct.

The court held the issue was not sufficiently novel to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event, though the defendant’s conduct contributed to unnecessary litigation steps.

Because the plaintiffs had delivered a Rule 49 offer that achieved an equal or better result, substantial indemnity costs applied after the offer date.

Costs were fixed in specified amounts payable to each responding lien claimant.

Following a motion in which the plaintiffs were completely successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court considered the defendants’ extensive submissions that went beyond the jurisdictional issues raised by the motion and addressed the merits of the case.

Applying the principles governing costs awards and recognizing the additional time and materials used by the defendants, the court held that costs somewhat above the partial indemnity scale were appropriate.

The plaintiffs were awarded a fixed all-inclusive costs amount payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking over $83,000 related to a failed restaurant venture, or alternatively $30,000 based on a promissory note signed by the defendants.

The court found that while the broader monetary claims and allegations of fraudulent conveyance involved contentious factual issues requiring a trial, there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the promissory note.

The defendants failed to establish duress or ambiguity in the note.

The court granted partial summary judgment for $28,800 under the promissory note and dismissed the requests for an injunction and declaration of fraudulent conveyance.

A mining company sought indemnification from the federal government for environmental remediation costs associated with uranium tailings produced under Cold War-era fixed-price uranium supply contracts with a Crown corporation.

The plaintiff argued that the contracts contained an implied term guaranteeing profitability or requiring indemnification if later government regulation increased production costs, and alternatively alleged breach of a duty of good faith and unjust enrichment.

The government moved for summary judgment dismissing the action, while the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment.

The court held that the proposed implied term was inconsistent with the express fixed‑price structure of the contracts and failed the necessity test for implying contractual terms.

It further held that the doctrine of good faith could not be used to create new obligations inconsistent with the contract, and that the government's enactment of environmental legislation did not constitute contractual bad faith.