S. Corthorn

The provincial defendants requested the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action against them under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the statement of claim lacked any factual basis for relief.

The self-represented plaintiffs sought $500 million in damages for alleged police misconduct, illegal detention, and racial profiling.

The court found the pleading exhibited hallmarks of vexatious and frivolous litigation, including sweeping allegations of rights violations and repetitive claims attempting to re-litigate matters from previous proceedings.

The court dismissed the claims against the provincial defendants without costs.

Following a successful motion for a compliance order against a unit owner and his tenant son, the applicant condominium corporation sought costs on a full indemnity scale.

The court found the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs and that the condominium's governing documents and the Condominium Act supported a full indemnity award to prevent other owners from subsidizing the enforcement.

The court reviewed the fees and disbursements, made minor reductions for duplication and unrelated work, and fixed costs at $15,916.49, to be added to the common expenses for the subject unit.

The defendants brought motions to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim, which sought over $2.2 million in damages related to real estate properties the plaintiff did not own.

The plaintiff, who had recently been declared a vexatious litigant in a separate proceeding, sought an adjournment, which was denied.

The court struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, finding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, the plaintiff lacked capacity to sue regarding properties he did not own, and the action was an abuse of process.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial and substantial indemnity basis.

A non-party to a family law proceeding filed two motions for leave to appeal previous endorsements that had denied him standing and restricted his contact with the children.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the non-party lacked standing, failed to properly serve the parties, and that the motions constituted an abuse of process.

The court ordered that the non-party must obtain leave before filing any further documents in the proceeding.

The respondent brought a motion for leave to appeal a previous order that dismissed his motion to recuse a judge.

The respondent failed to obtain leave of the court to bring the motion, as required by a prior order restricting his ability to file further motions.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal due to this procedural non-compliance and ordered court staff not to accept further materials from the respondent unless they include the correct title of proceeding.

Following a successful appeal by the defendant, the trial judge determined the scale and quantum of the defendant's trial costs.

The court found that the plaintiff attempted to perpetrate a fraud on the court by presenting a forged will and misleading evidence.

Consequently, the court awarded the defendant trial costs on a full indemnity basis, fixed at $64,985.54, payable by the plaintiff or alternatively by the estate.

The plaintiff corporation brought an action for damages against the defendants.

The sole director of the plaintiff corporation brought a motion for leave to represent the corporation pursuant to Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reviewed the factors for granting leave, noting the applicant's shortcomings as a litigant and the lack of documentary evidence regarding the corporation's internal structure and financial situation.

The motion was dismissed, but the applicant was granted leave to bring the motion again on a further and better record.

In a child protection proceeding involving four children, a non-party community member brought a motion to be added as a party to put forward a plan of care.

The Children's Aid Society did not consent but did not oppose the motion.

Applying the five-part test from Highland Shores CAS, the court found that the non-party had a legal interest, was capable of putting forward a plan of care, and that her addition was necessary to determine the issues and in the children's best interests.

The motion was granted and the non-party was added as a respondent.

The applicant paternal grandmother sought contact with her grandson.

The respondent mother agreed to a gradual resumption of contact, while the respondent father supported the application but did not otherwise participate.

The father had previously commenced a divorce proceeding in Perth, which automatically stayed the grandmother's application under s. 27 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court lifted the stay, finding no bad faith, prejudice to the mother if the stay remained, and a waste of court resources if the matters were not dealt with together.

A consent order for grandparent contact was issued, and the mother's claims against the father were directed to an uncontested trial.

Following a successful motion regarding parenting time and child support, the applicant sought costs of $6,020.64.

The respondent argued financial hardship.

The court considered the respondent's litigation conduct, offers to settle, and the reasonableness of the fees incurred.

The court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $5,000 at a rate of $100 per month, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a settlement reached on behalf of six minor grandchildren regarding claims arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision involving their grandparents.

The claims were made pursuant to s. 61 of the Family Law Act.

The court found the settlement, which allocated $18,168.15 net to each minor plaintiff, to be in their best interests and approved it.

The court also approved the solicitor-client account, ordered substituted service on the defendant estate's insurer, and granted leave to amend the title of proceeding to correct a misnomer.

The applicant brought a motion for interim relief regarding parenting time, child support, and life insurance.

The respondent, who was self-represented and had not filed responding materials, requested an adjournment, which the court denied due to delay and lack of prejudice.

The court maintained the status quo for parenting time exchanges and ordered the respondent to disclose his life insurance details.

For child support, the court included the respondent's CERB and RRSP income in his 2020 income, setting child support at $478 per month and ordering the payment of arrears.

The plaintiff brought an urgent, ex parte motion in writing for a certificate of pending litigation to be registered on the title of the home she shared with the deceased.

The plaintiff claimed an interest in the property based on a constructive trust.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that serving the estate trustee was impracticable or unnecessary, noting ongoing communications between the parties.

The motion was adjourned to be brought on notice, with an interim order preventing the estate from agreeing to a closing date for the sale of the property without consent or court order.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff successfully proved the validity of the deceased's 2013 will, the parties sought a determination on costs.

The plaintiff sought full or substantial indemnity costs, while the participating defendant argued for reduced partial indemnity costs due to the plaintiff's conduct.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs but reduced the amount payable by the defendant by 50% due to the plaintiff's lack of diligence in the discovery process.

The court also limited the plaintiff's indemnification from the estate, ordering her to personally bear the remaining costs resulting from her mismanagement of documents.

The applicant father commenced a family law application in Ottawa regarding custody and access of the parties' infant child.

The respondent mother, who resided primarily in the Toronto area with the child, brought a motion to transfer the venue to Newmarket or Toronto.

The court determined that the child's 'real home' and ordinary residence was with the respondent in Bradford, Ontario.

Consequently, the court ordered the application transferred to Newmarket, the closest courthouse to the child's ordinary residence.

The plaintiffs and their insurer, Allstate, brought a motion for default judgment against an uninsured snowmobile driver who struck the plaintiff pedestrian.

The plaintiffs had previously settled their first-party claims with Allstate and assigned their rights against the other defendants to the insurer.

The court declined to grant the requested relief, finding that additional materials were required to clarify the nature of the claims being advanced, the steps taken to discontinue against the Crown, and the evidence supporting the quantum of indemnity and costs sought.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion to find the applicant mother in contempt of previous court orders regarding a week-on/week-off parenting schedule and mandated counselling for the children.

The mother argued that the father failed to effect special service and that a contempt motion was premature.

The court waived the special service requirement but agreed that a contempt motion was premature given the conflicting affidavit evidence regarding the breakdown of the parenting arrangement.

The court adjourned the contempt motion and ordered the parties to attend a case conference to attempt to resolve the issues.

The minor plaintiff, through her litigation guardian, brought a motion for leave to discontinue the action against one of the defendants, the property lessor, after learning the slip and fall occurred inside the store.

The plaintiff also sought to dispense with service on the Children's Lawyer.

The court declined to grant the relief requested due to several deficiencies in the motion record, including inconsistent consents from other defendants, lack of position from cross-claiming defendants, failure to serve the litigation guardian, and insufficient evidence supporting the request to dispense with service on the Children's Lawyer.

The court remained seized and directed the filing of additional materials.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing for approval of an infant settlement arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The court found the settlement amount reasonable but declined to approve it immediately due to procedural deficiencies.

The court required further evidence, including the 17-year-old minor's consent, alternative proposals for managing the settlement funds instead of paying them into court for seven months, a copy of the minutes of settlement, and a detailed breakdown of the solicitor-client account.

The motion was adjourned with the judge remaining seized.

The plaintiff obtained default judgment against its insurer for a fire loss claim after the insurer failed to deliver a statement of defence.

The insurer brought a motion to set aside the default judgment and stay a notice of garnishment.

The court found that while the insurer did not provide a plausible explanation for its entire period of delay, it demonstrated an arguable defence on the merits regarding the actual cash value of the building and overpayment of lost rent.

Balancing the prejudice to the parties, the court set aside the default judgment and stayed the garnishment, ordering the insurer to pay substantial indemnity costs thrown away.