S. F. Dunphy

The plaintiffs, suppliers of automated assembly lines, sued the defendants for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract following the cancellation of a major auto sector project.

The plaintiffs alleged they relied on a comfort letter from the defendants regarding project financing and that a subsequent oral agreement was made for the defendants to assume the debt.

The court dismissed the claims, finding the comfort letter was not misleading and reliance on it was unreasonable given the plaintiffs' own deceptive request.

The court also found no evidence of the alleged oral agreement and held that any such claim would be barred by the Limitations Act and the Statute of Frauds.

The applicant brought an ex parte application seeking an order to examine the respondent before trial in Montreal for an action pending in the Quebec Superior Court.

The court dismissed the application, finding no basis to proceed ex parte and noting multiple deficiencies in the materials.

Specifically, the applicant failed to comply with the Interprovincial Summonses Act by not providing a certificate signed by a judge, failing to tender witness fees, and not addressing the lack of reciprocal immunity provisions in Quebec.

The dismissal was without prejudice to bringing the application back on notice with a proper record.

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.

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 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.

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.

The plaintiff, an unpaid trade creditor on a townhouse development project, brought an action against the director of the corporate owner for breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act.

The corporate owner had sold all units but failed to pay the plaintiff in full, and the director subsequently declared personal bankruptcy.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the corporate owner was not a 'contractor' under section 8 of the Act, and therefore no trust funds existed.

Consequently, the director could not be held personally liable under section 13, and there was no evidence of dishonesty to prevent the release of claims through his bankruptcy discharge.

The defendants, residents of California, brought a motion to stay the proceeding on the grounds that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and was not a convenient forum.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants breached fiduciary duties and misappropriated assets while employed by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs argued that because they moved their corporate operations from Quebec to Ontario after the alleged wrongs, Ontario acquired jurisdiction.

The court applied the Van Breda framework and held that a plaintiff cannot import jurisdiction by moving to a new province after the fact.

The motion was granted and the proceeding was stayed.