Scott Jones

The plaintiff, a former employee of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC), sued TCHC, several individual TCHC employees, the City of Toronto, and the City Ombudsman for wrongful dismissal and intentional infliction of mental suffering following an investigation into TCHC's eviction practices.

The Ombudsman Defendants and the individual TCHC Defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim.

The court granted the Ombudsman Defendants' motion, finding the claim against them was an abuse of process and barred by absolute privilege under the City of Toronto Act.

The court dismissed the individual TCHC Defendants' motion, finding it was arguable that the limitation period for the intentional infliction of mental suffering claim did not begin to run until the plaintiff was dismissed, as a proceeding would not have been an appropriate remedy before that time.

The City of Toronto brought an ill-conceived summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for damages arising from a trip and fall, alleging late notice and prejudice.

The plaintiffs opposed and brought a cross-motion.

The City later withdrew its summary judgment motion.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs, finding the City's motion ill-conceived, its allegations of prejudice inaccurate given its own late disclosure of documents, and its conduct during discovery unacceptable.

Following a prior decision enforcing a settlement agreement and dismissing the plaintiffs’ action against certain defendants, the court determined costs of the motion to enforce settlement.

The court found the plaintiffs’ attempts to resile from the settlement led to unnecessary litigation.

Applying the discretionary factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considering a prior costs offer, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $7,500 payable to the moving defendant.

The court also raised the possibility of a solicitor reimbursement order under Rule 57.07(1)(b) if the lawyer’s conduct contributed to the unnecessary litigation.

Enforcement of the costs award against the plaintiffs was stayed pending consideration of whether their lawyer should reimburse them.

The moving defendants sought judgment enforcing an alleged oral settlement reached during a pre‑trial conference.

The responding plaintiffs disputed that a binding settlement had been made and argued that communications from the pre‑trial could not be relied upon due to settlement privilege and Rule 50.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that communications made during settlement discussions, including those occurring at a pre‑trial conference, may be admitted where necessary to prove the existence or terms of a settlement agreement.

Based on uncontradicted affidavit evidence from counsel, the court found that the plaintiffs made an offer to dismiss the action against the moving defendants without costs and that the offer was accepted.

The court concluded a valid settlement existed and exercised its discretion to enforce it.