Scott William Beattie

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, 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.

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.

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.