Scott William Beattie

The moving party, a lawyer who formerly represented the applicant in a family law proceeding, brought a motion for summary judgment to strike the co-respondents' amended answers against him.

The co-respondents had previously brought a civil action against the lawyer regarding the non-disbursement of proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned property, which was dismissed on the basis that the lawyer owed them no duty of care.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding that the claims in the amended answers were identical to those dismissed in the civil action and were therefore barred by the doctrines of res judicata and abuse of process.

The plaintiff, Songbird Life Sciences Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, Connectus Services Ltd. and Connectus Services Ltd. C.O.B. as Connectus Global, for unpaid invoices related to the supply of COVID-19 testing products.

The defendants admitted the debt but argued that a subsequent payment plan constituted a new contract and that they suffered damages due to the plaintiff's refusal to continue supply, which should be set off.

The court found no new consideration for the payment plan to be a new contract and no evidence of damages for set-off.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the action from Hamilton to Toronto pursuant to Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

Noting that a summary judgment motion was already scheduled to be heard in Hamilton on consent, the court found the transfer motion premature.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to renew it following the determination of the pending summary judgment motion.

The defendant, Brian Radford, brought a summary judgment motion seeking to dismiss a solicitor's negligence action initiated by Anna Gionet.

Radford argued that Gionet's claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, asserting that the two-year limitation period had expired before the action was commenced in January 2014.

Gionet contended that she did not discover her claim until September 2013 and, alternatively, that the limitation period should have been tolled due to her mental and psychological incapacity following her husband's death.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial to determine the actual discovery date of the claim and whether the limitation period was tolled.

The appellant appealed a judgment finding him in breach of a real estate purchase and sale agreement for a property in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

The appellant, who was the tenant in possession and assignee of a third mortgage, argued he was entitled to extend the closing date beyond the agreed closing time of 2:30 p.m. on February 24, 2017.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that time was of the essence in the agreement and the appellant was not ready, willing, and able to close at the agreed time.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that he could unilaterally extend the closing date after failing to complete at the specified time.

The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondents.

Following a judgment declaring the respondent in breach of an agreement of purchase and sale and ordering the return of a $40,000 deposit, the successful applicants sought substantial indemnity costs based on a pre-litigation demand letter.

The court found the letter did not qualify as a Rule 49 offer to settle because it was essentially a demand letter with a one-day deadline.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the quantum at $14,000 after considering the principles of indemnity, the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, and the complexity of the proceedings.

The applicants agreed to purchase a property and paid a $40,000 deposit.

The transaction failed to close on the scheduled date due to existing encumbrances on title, including mortgages and a caution from a previous failed sale.

The respondent, who had assumed the seller's rights, attempted to extend the closing date but was unable to provide clear title.

The applicants refused further extensions and demanded the return of their deposit.

The court found that the respondent was not in a position to convey substantially what the applicants contracted for, as the property remained subject to encumbrances.

The court declared the respondent in breach of the purchase agreement and ordered the return of the deposit to the applicants.

The court assessed costs following a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' action and the Smiths' counterclaim, with costs payable on a full indemnity basis.

The defendants by counterclaim, Damandeep-Singh Aujla and Daman Aujla Professional Corporation, sought full indemnity costs.

The court found the proceedings complex, involving multiple parties and transactions, and noted the Smiths' lack of credibility, delay tactics, and refusal to admit key facts.

The claims against Mr. Aujla, a professional, were of great importance and impugned his integrity.

The court found the hourly rates of counsel reasonable and awarded full indemnity costs to Damandeep-Singh Aujla and Daman Aujla Professional Corporation, totaling $43,486.92, after disallowing Westlaw Research as an overhead expense.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a further extension of time to deliver their affidavits of documents and an expert report on damages in a $50 million action against the government.

The defendants did not oppose the extension but sought terms requiring the plaintiffs to post security for costs and pay costs thrown away due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with previous scheduling orders.

The court granted the extension but ordered the plaintiffs to post $230,000 in security for costs and pay $20,000 in costs thrown away, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to commit the necessary resources to advance their claims efficiently and had breached court orders.

The defendant, a federal standing Crown agent, moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) on the basis of prosecutorial immunity and failure to plead sufficient facts for malicious prosecution.

The plaintiffs alleged misfeasance in public office, abuse of process, conspiracy, and malicious prosecution arising from the defendant's involvement in an environmental investigation and subsequent prosecution.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims were barred by prosecutorial immunity, as the jurisprudence on whether other torts can be brought against prosecutors remains unsettled.

The court also found the plaintiffs pleaded sufficient material facts to support the elements of malicious prosecution.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that it was a proper case for summary judgment and agreed with the reasons of the motion judge.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a discretionary order of the motion judge who denied an adjournment after allowing counsel to be removed from the record and granted summary judgment dismissing the action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the claim was clearly statute-barred and there was no basis to interfere with the motion judge's finding.

A costs decision following a motion concerning deficiencies in the plaintiff’s affidavit of documents.

The defendant submitted that significant time had been spent attempting to obtain a properly particularized affidavit of documents from the plaintiff.

The plaintiff failed to provide submissions on costs despite being contacted by the court.

Considering the divided success on the underlying motion and the absence of submissions from the plaintiff, the court ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents and to post security for costs under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that the plaintiff resided outside Ontario.

The court held that the plaintiff’s documentary disclosure lacked sufficient particularity and ordered the plaintiff to provide a more detailed affidavit identifying individual physiotherapy records to facilitate discovery and trial.

However, the court declined to order security for costs after finding the plaintiff was impecunious and that the legal malpractice claim was not clearly devoid of merit.

Given the plaintiff’s financial circumstances, ordering security would effectively terminate the action before its merits could be determined.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed without prejudice to renewal following discovery.

The appellants' action was dismissed by a motion judge because they were two days late in paying an $8,000 costs award mandated by a peremptory scheduling order.

The appellants appealed the dismissal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge exercised her discretion unreasonably by failing to consider the justice of the case, the lack of prejudice to the respondents, and the minor nature of the breach.

The Court extended the time for compliance and reinstated the action.