Shawn J. O’Connor

Following a successful summary judgment motion on liability, the plaintiff sought costs for both the motion and the liability portion of the action.

The defendant opposed, arguing costs should be proportionate to future damages and seeking a credit for costs received from a third-party settlement.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, finding no reason to defer costs and that the third-party settlement was irrelevant to the costs between the main parties.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis for the action's liability portion and a substantial indemnity basis for the motion, totaling $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff, Margaret Ozimkowski, moved for partial summary judgment on liability against the defendant, Luc Raymond, following a rear-end motor vehicle collision on an icy road.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff's actions and the icy road conditions created a genuine issue for trial, and that granting partial summary judgment would risk inconsistent findings with his third-party claim against the County of Lanark.

The court found that the defendant failed to disprove his negligence, as the plaintiff's stop was reasonable given the conditions and visible emergency lights.

The court also determined that there was no risk of inconsistent findings with the third-party claim, as the issues were distinct.

Partial summary judgment on liability was granted to the plaintiff, with damages to be assessed at trial.

The plaintiff, a former nursing student, sued the defendants (individual employees and two educational institutions) for various torts after being wrongfully accused of academic fraud.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the amended statement of claim.

The court struck the claims for personal liability against individual defendants, breach of fiduciary duty, and defamation, but granted leave to the plaintiff to amend the claim within 45 days.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient particulars for personal liability of employees, failed to establish the elements for a fiduciary duty, and did not plead that the defamatory words were spoken or written by the university defendants.

Costs were agreed upon by the parties.

The plaintiff, a former nursing student, sued the defendants for damages after they falsely accused her of academic fraud.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, related to an academic matter, and was an abuse of process.

The court found that while the university has broad discretion in academic matters, this does not extend to the negligent performance of an internal investigation or intentional torts.

The court struck the claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, bad faith, and breach of privacy due to pleading deficiencies, but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim.

On a motion to amend a statement of defence and crossclaim in a nuisance and negligence action arising from alleged structural damage caused by construction dewatering and a neighbouring tree, the moving defendant sought to delete pleaded facts and add a limitations defence.

The court held that the impugned paragraphs contained material admissions helpful to the plaintiff on a central causation issue, and their deletion would cause prejudice not compensable by costs or adjournment.

However, the court permitted narrower amendments correcting an obvious error in the property reference while preserving the admissions about dewatering impacts in the vicinity.

The limitations pleading was also allowed, and no costs were awarded because success was divided.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to consolidate two related actions, add a new plaintiff, and amend its pleadings to include claims for defamation and breach of a duty of good faith.

The court held that the two actions should not be formally consolidated but ordered that they be listed for trial consecutively.

The proposed defamation claim and addition of a new plaintiff were refused because the pleadings lacked the particularity required for defamation and would not survive a motion to strike.

The proposed claim for breach of a duty of good faith was also rejected because such a duty cannot stand as an independent cause of action separate from breach of contract.

Certain amendments pleading material facts were allowed, while others were dismissed for improperly pleading evidence rather than material facts.

A third party brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a third party claim for contribution and indemnity on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The moving party argued that there was no contractual relationship with the defendant in the main action and therefore no basis for liability, and further that the damages claimed were not the same.

The court applied the generous “plain and obvious” test governing motions to strike and reviewed the scope of third party claims under Rule 29.01.

It held that it was arguable the parties owed each other a duty of care in negligence arising from their roles in the same construction project and that the claim could also constitute an independent claim arising from the same transaction.

Because it was not plain and obvious that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, the motion to dismiss the third party claim was refused.

The parties were involved in a long-standing dealership agreement that deteriorated over time.

The plaintiff originally obtained a consent interlocutory injunction preventing the defendant from terminating the agreement, which remained in place for nearly ten years without the matter proceeding to trial.

The defendant successfully moved to dissolve the injunction due to inordinate delay, but the plaintiff subsequently obtained a fresh interim injunction from a different judge after receiving a new termination notice.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the dissolution of the original injunction, finding no reversible error.

However, the court allowed the defendant's appeal and set aside the fresh injunction, concluding that the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors and that the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured continuing the hostile business relationship.