Sean F. Dunphy

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim against the defendants following a successful summary judgment motion.

The defendants sought $50,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented, failed to provide cost submissions within the allotted time.

The court found the defendants' requested costs to be reasonable and fair, considering their complete success, the seriousness and complexity of the allegations, the plaintiff's conduct in litigation, and the modest rates claimed.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $50,000 in costs plus post-judgment interest.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim due to her persistent non-compliance with court orders, including multiple costs awards, and her disruptive conduct.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, had a history of abusing the court process, making baseless allegations of judicial corruption, and failing to adhere to procedural rules.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-motion to vary a prior order and, while acknowledging the need for accommodation for self-represented litigants, found that the plaintiff's conduct warranted firm action.

The court stayed the plaintiff's action and prohibited further motions without leave, conditionally dismissing the claim if outstanding costs orders were not paid within 30 days.

The defendant, Steven Nowack, was found guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with a judgment requiring an accounting of funds obtained through fraud and a subsequent order for document production.

Despite opportunities to purge his contempt, Nowack's efforts were deemed half-hearted and calculated.

The court reviewed sentencing principles, including coercion and deterrence, and considered aggravating factors such as a pattern of non-compliance and previous contempt convictions.

Finding that no lesser remedy would be effective, the court sentenced Nowack to 30 days incarceration and ordered a detailed accounting of specific financial transactions within 45 days of his release.

The plaintiff commenced a defamation action in Ontario in 2010 against the defendants.

In 2011, the plaintiff commenced a parallel action in Korea for the same defamation claims.

The Korean action was dismissed after the plaintiff failed to comply with an order to post security for costs.

The defendants brought a motion in Ontario to stay the proceeding as an abuse of process and forum non conveniens.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's attempt to continue the Ontario action after his Korean action was dismissed on the merits constituted an abuse of process.

The action was permanently stayed and the statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, a TD mobile mortgage manager and TD Bank, for negligent misrepresentation regarding a $120,000 investment in a debenture.

The plaintiff claimed the manager assured him the investment was safe and that he assumed TD was involved.

The court found that the manager's statements were honest opinions given "friend to friend" based on personal experience, and did not constitute negligent misrepresentation.

The court also found no reasonable basis for the plaintiff to assume TD was involved, dismissing the vicarious liability claim against TD.

Furthermore, the court held the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the claims against the manager and the vicarious liability claim against TD were dismissed.

On a Rule 21 and Rule 25.11 motion, the court struck the amended claims against individual university faculty and administrators arising from a medical residency dispute, while allowing the action to continue primarily against the university.

Applying the employee-liability framework from Peoples Jewellers and the jurisprudence on non-justiciable academic discretion, the court held that the amended pleading still failed to allege tortious conduct undertaken in a personal capacity separate from the university.

The court also held that most conspiracy allegations were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and that claims framed as negligence, negligent misrepresentation, inducing breach of contract, and interference with economic relations were inadequately pleaded.

Leave to amend was denied as against the individual defendants, but limited leave was granted regarding certain struck claims against the university.

Costs were awarded to the moving parties.

The applicant church sought a declaration that its single-building complex, which housed both a place of worship and a religious school, was exempt from property taxation under the Assessment Act.

The respondent assessment corporation argued that the school portions were taxable because the school was operated by a separately incorporated entity.

The court found that the church and the school formed a single patrimony, with the church controlling and dominating the school's operations.

The court held that the exemptions for a place of worship and a non-profit educational seminary applied to the school-use areas, granting the application.

The applicant sought to recognize and enforce Mareva and Norwich orders issued by the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench against a former employee alleged to have perpetrated a significant fraud.

The orders restrained the respondent from disposing of assets and required third parties, including a bank in Toronto, to disclose account information.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, emphasizing the principle of comity and the routine enforcement of out-of-province orders where the originating court properly exercised its jurisdiction.

The plaintiff sought full indemnity costs of $58,030 against the defendants (indemnitors) following a successful motion, relying on a lease provision.

The responding indemnitor argued the lease provision applied only to the tenant, not the indemnitors.

The court agreed, finding no basis for full indemnity costs against the indemnitors and noting issues with the plaintiff's dockets.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, reducing the claimed fees for a second counsel's attendance and reducing disbursements for lack of particularity, fixing total costs at $28,815.28.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff's claims in one of two proceedings, the court issued a supplementary endorsement to finalize the consolidation order and determine costs.

The court rejected the defendants' request to require pre-clearance of the plaintiff's Consolidated Statement of Defence.

On costs, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding partial indemnity appropriate.

Considering the plaintiff's financial circumstances and the defendants' over-lawyering, the court fixed costs at $30,000 payable to the defendants.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action against her own insurer (TD) on a summary judgment motion, the court determined the costs payable to TD.

The plaintiff had entered into a Pierringer Agreement with the co-defendants and unsuccessfully pursued TD for excess coverage, adding an unjustified claim for punitive damages.

TD had made an Offer to Contribute $150,000 which the plaintiff rejected.

The court awarded TD costs of the entire action, fixing them at $72,070.93, applying a substantial indemnity scale from the date of the offer and a partial indemnity scale prior to that date.

The plaintiff brought a motion to vary a 2012 order that had set aside a Registrar's dismissal of her action for delay, on the condition she set the matter down for trial within 60 days.

The plaintiff failed to comply with the 60-day deadline and took no meaningful steps to advance the litigation for several years.

The court applied the Reid criteria with heightened scrutiny, finding the plaintiff failed to adequately explain the delay, demonstrate inadvertence, move promptly, or rebut the presumption of prejudice.

The motion was dismissed, and the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act to stay the action entirely.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal to issue a building permit for an accessory building on his waterfront property.

The Township argued the proposed building violated front yard setback requirements, despite being located in the side yard, because the applicant's grandfathered cottage was closer to the water than current standards allow.

The Superior Court of Justice applied a correctness standard of review and found the Township erred in its interpretation of the zoning by-law.

The court held that the by-law expressly permits accessory buildings in the side yard and that front yard requirements do not apply to side yard constructions.

The appeal was allowed and the permit was ordered to be issued.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment to enforce a Nevada default judgment against the defendant for unpaid casino markers.

The court applied the real and substantial connection test and found that Nevada had jurisdiction over the dispute.

However, the court declined to enforce the portion of the Nevada judgment that awarded prospective costs for enforcing the judgment in Ontario, finding those costs to be excessive and a matter of domestic jurisdiction.

Judgment was granted for the principal amounts and interest, with costs fixed at $7,500.

The defendant brought a motion to re-open pleadings to file a late jury notice, citing inadvertence by new counsel after a co-defendant municipality was removed from the action.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing prejudice as the matter was scheduled for a non-jury trial imminently.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the delay was due to counsel's inadvertence, granting the motion would move the case to the back of the lengthy jury trial list, causing non-compensable prejudice and delaying justice for the plaintiff.

A law firm brought an application under section 23 of the Solicitors Act seeking an order for the payment of outstanding legal accounts.

The client had not challenged the validity or effect of the retainer agreement itself, but simply had not paid the accounts.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, holding that sections 23 and 24 of the Act do not permit a solicitor to bypass the standard assessment process to collect unpaid accounts where the underlying retainer agreement is not in dispute.

The plaintiff sued the police services board and an investigating officer for negligent investigation, false arrest, and other torts following his acquittal on criminal charges including extortion.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that most of the claims were barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiff failed to prove they were not discoverable earlier.

The court also dismissed the negligent investigation claim on the merits, finding no evidence that the police breached the standard of care of a reasonable officer in similar circumstances, as they had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges based on sworn statements.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a Canadian distributor, brought an action against the defendants following the repudiation of a distribution agreement during US Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

The defendants obtained a temporary restraining order from the US Bankruptcy Court enjoining the Canadian action.

The plaintiff then brought a motion in Ontario seeking to enforce an alleged undertaking made by the defendants to the US court to bring a motion to stay the Canadian action.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding it premature and noting that the US court had already considered the issue and was the appropriate forum to determine its own jurisdiction, emphasizing principles of comity in cross-border insolvencies.

The plaintiff, former CEO of the defendants, sued for wrongful dismissal and related torts, alleging the defendants were common employers with his bankrupt direct employer and conspired to place it into bankruptcy to avoid paying his severance.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding the tort claims were an impermissible collateral attack on the bankruptcy orders and lacked evidentiary support.

The court also held that the written employment agreements precluded a finding of common employer liability, and that a release executed by the plaintiff in favour of the bankrupt employer's trustee operated to release the defendants as alleged joint debtors in any event.

The defendant insurer moved to stay a civil action brought by insured parties seeking payment under a marine insurance policy following a ship collision with a railway bridge.

The insurer relied on an arbitration clause governed by the International Commercial Arbitrations Act requiring disputes to be referred to arbitration in London.

The plaintiffs argued their claim instead enforced a settlement agreement allegedly reached with the insurer.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not establish a stand‑alone settlement agreement independent of the insurance policy and therefore the arbitration clause applied.

However, due to concerns that procedural preconditions in the insurer’s internal rules could delay access to arbitration, the court issued a temporary stay and directed steps to ensure the arbitration process could proceed.