Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The plaintiff developer brought a motion for default judgment against the self-represented defendant for failing to close on an agreement of purchase and sale for a new home.

The defendant, a refugee facing a removal order, failed to file a defence or any evidence regarding his financial circumstances despite being granted an adjournment to do so.

The court found the plaintiff took reasonable steps to mitigate its damages by reselling the property at a lower price.

Default judgment was granted, and the defendant was ordered to pay damages representing the difference in sale price, real estate commissions, and legal fees, plus partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, Kim Thompson, sought default judgment against 10392197 Canada Corp. o/a Ontario Green Savings (OGS) for fraudulent misrepresentations and unfair practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

OGS had induced Ms. Thompson into HVAC equipment rental agreements through deceptive means, including misrepresenting government affiliations, concealing contract terms, and registering excessive security interests on her property.

The court found OGS liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and unfair practices, rescinded the contracts, discharged the security interests, awarded compensatory damages for payments made, and significant punitive damages to deter similar predatory conduct.

The judgment was ordered to survive OGS's bankruptcy.

The action against the co-defendant, Canadian Home Improvement Credit Corporation, was dismissed.

Five organizations brought motions to intervene in an application challenging the constitutionality of the Safe Streets Act.

The applicant consented and the respondent did not oppose.

The court applied the test for intervention under Rule 13.02 and found that all five proposed intervenors—the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Aboriginal Legal Services, Justice for Children and Youth, the Income Security Advocacy Centre, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association—met the criteria.

Each organization demonstrated special expertise, a real and substantial interest in the proceedings, and the ability to provide an important and distinct perspective.

The motions to intervene were granted.

The plaintiff, the Ontario Securities Commission, moved for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the transfer of a Welland home from the defendants, a husband and wife, to the wife alone was a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat creditors.

The husband owed an outstanding fine to the plaintiff for breaches of the Securities Act.

The court found that the transfer was made for nominal consideration and with the acknowledged intent to protect the property from creditors.

The court granted summary judgment, declaring the conveyance fraudulent and void, and alternatively found that the husband retained an interest in the property via resulting and constructive trusts.

The defendants (vendors) moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's (purchaser's) claim for the return of a $150,000 deposit and to grant their counterclaim for damages of $900,000 following an abortive real estate transaction.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidentiary record was inadequate and that there were numerous genuine issues requiring a trial, including alleged physical defects in the property and whether an oral agreement to reduce the purchase price was reached.

However, the court exercised its jurisdiction under Rule 20.05 to specify certain material facts not in dispute, such as the original purchase price being $2,250,000.

The Appellants (Hills) appealed a motion judge's refusal to set aside a default judgment obtained by the Respondent (Hiley) on a defendant's claim.

The Appellants had failed to file a defence to the defendant's claim, mistakenly believing their original plaintiff's claim sufficiently addressed the issues.

The court found the motion judge erred by not considering the net effect of the refusal on the interests of justice, as it would foreclose the Appellants' ability to advance their original claim.

The appeal was allowed, the default judgment was set aside, and the Appellants were permitted to file a defence.

No costs were awarded on the appeal due to the Appellants' initial error.

The applicants purchased property subject to a 99-year lease held by the respondent flying club.

Seven years later, the applicants sought to declare the lease void for contravening the Planning Act, arguing it was executed after an amendment that repealed an exemption for long-term leases.

The respondent argued the lease was saved by the doctrine of part performance prior to the amendment.

The court applied the four-part test for part performance and found that the respondent's actions, including surveying the property, making improvements, and paying rent, constituted part performance prior to the amendment.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14 to avoid the dismissal of his personal injury action for delay.

The defendant elevator maintenance company opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay under Rule 24.01.

The court found that the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, which was largely due to the inadvertence of his counsel, and that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

The plaintiff's motion was granted and the defendant's cross-motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved for judgment in the amount of $150,000 based on Minutes of Settlement, following the defendants' default on installment payments.

The court considered whether the consent to judgment constituted an unenforceable penalty clause or if relief from forfeiture was warranted for payments already made.

The court found the stipulated sum was not unconscionable given the negotiated nature of the settlement and the original claim amount.

Relief from forfeiture was denied as the bargain was not unconscionable and the defendants were dilatory in seeking relief.

The motion for judgment was granted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The applicant, incarcerated and self-represented, brought a summary application seeking constitutional declarations and $2 million in damages against the Crown, alleging violations related to frequent lockdowns, inadequate medical and legal assistance, and denial of religious freedoms at Toronto South Detention Centre.

The Crown moved to convert the application to an action, arguing that the complexity, anticipated credibility issues, and volume of evidence necessitated a full trial process with documentary and oral discoveries.

The court granted the Crown's motion, converting the application to an action, finding that a structured action process would be fairer, more affordable, and ultimately more efficient given the substantial damages claimed and the applicant's detailed rebuttal to the Crown's anticipated evidence.

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Toronto South Detention Centre were removed as respondents.

The moving defendants sought leave to extend the time for bringing a motion to amend their pleadings, a deadline previously set by consent at a pre-trial conference.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their two-month delay in bringing the motion, which was filed only ten days before trial in a 13-year-old case.

The court emphasized that consent orders are contractual, and case management deadlines are crucial for delivering timely and affordable justice.

Granting the extension would imperil the trial date and cause unconscionable prejudice to the plaintiffs, especially given the potential implication of their counsel as a witness.

The defendant sought to dismiss the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court reviewed the statement of claim and the plaintiff's submissions, finding no recognizable cause of action.

The claim, alleging the defendant failed to provide disclosure from the Bermuda Police Service, lacked essential pleadings regarding duty, breach, and resulting loss.

The court also noted the claim appeared to be statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The action was dismissed.

The defendant mortgagor moved to set aside a default judgment and writ of possession obtained by the plaintiff mortgagee, and to stay a prior order declining to set aside a notice to vacate.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no plausible explanation for the defendant's default, no arguable defence on the merits regarding priority of encumbrances or Planning Act compliance, and that setting aside the judgment would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiff and undermine the administration of justice.

This decision addresses costs following the dismissal of the applicants' motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The respondents, including EACOM Timber Corporation, Northshore Forest Inc., Vermilion Forest Management Company Ltd., and two government Ministries, did not seek costs.

The applicants requested that no costs be ordered against them.

The court, noting the lack of costs requests from the respondents and the applicants' position, ordered that all parties bear their own costs for the interlocutory injunction motion.

The moving party sought reconsideration of a costs order arising from a garnishment motion related to enforcement of a judgment exceeding $400,000.

The court reviewed its earlier endorsement under Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows amendment of an order containing an accidental slip or omission.

The court found that it had inadvertently failed to address relief sought in an amended notice of motion requiring a numbered corporation and an individual to disgorge funds received from a third party for the judgment debtor’s services.

Concluding the omission resulted from an accidental oversight, the court amended its prior endorsement to require payment of the amounts received, with interest, to the sheriff pursuant to the garnishment.

The motion to set aside the earlier costs order was dismissed.

Following a prior decision granting summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiff’s action as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendants sought approximately $75,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff argued that $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis was reasonable.

The court held that substantial indemnity was not justified because the plaintiff had not engaged in improper, vexatious, or unnecessary conduct and the procedural steps taken were pursuant to court orders.

Applying the principles in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council of Ontario and the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed costs at $35,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

Following earlier summary judgment and Rule 21 rulings, the court determined the appropriate costs award between the parties.

The plaintiff obtained summary judgment against the corporate defendant for misappropriated funds and successfully resisted the individual defendant’s Rule 21 motion challenging the pleadings, but failed on its claim against the individual defendant under Rule 20.

The court held that costs should follow the overall result and rejected the defendants’ argument that costs should be parsed according to individual legal arguments or sub‑issues.

Taking into account the plaintiff’s partial lack of success against the individual defendant, the court reduced the claimed amount and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The two defendants were held jointly and severally liable for the costs award.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment, the successful defendants sought costs of $23,895.43.

The plaintiff argued for reduced costs because the defendants brought two separate summary judgment motions when one would have sufficed.

The court agreed that the duplication of proceedings warranted a reduction and fixed the defendants' costs at $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendants in an elder abuse and property dispute action brought a third-party claim against the plaintiffs' children, alleging they had maliciously meddled in the family relationship and turned the plaintiffs against the defendants.

The third parties moved to strike the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, holding that the law of torts does not regulate family interactions or compensate for bruised feelings, and noted that the tort of alienation of affection was abolished in Ontario in 1978.

In a medical malpractice and conspiracy action, a defendant physician moved for summary judgment and to strike claims under Rules 20, 21.01(3)(d), and 25.11.

The court held that the conspiracy allegations required the forensic machinery of a trial and declined to apply the best-foot-forward principle on this record.

On the malpractice claim, the court found the existing anesthesiologist report insufficient on the general practitioner standard of care but concluded a treating physician was not categorically disqualified from providing qualifying opinion evidence.

The motion was made conditional on service of a compliant report within 30 days, failing which the action against the moving physician would be dismissed with costs.