S. Shoemaker

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant, sought leave to continue or commence new proceedings against the Attorney General of Ontario and Soo Greyhounds Inc. under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court reviewed the applicant's arguments, including claims that a prior "counter-application" was a nullity, that the Registrar erred in refusing filings, and that the 2014 vexatious litigant order was no longer necessary or did not apply.

The court found no merit to the applicant's arguments and determined the application for leave was an abuse of process, citing the lack of reasonable grounds, failure to pay previous costs, persistent unsuccessful motions, excessive factum length, and attempts to re-litigate settled issues.

Leave was denied.

The respondent to an application brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused during the cross-examination of the applicant's representative.

The underlying application sought a declaration that a first right of refusal was void.

The Master categorized the 20 refused questions into four categories and ordered the applicant to answer 19 of them, finding them relevant to the issues and credibility.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the moving party based on the parties' agreement regarding the threshold of success.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought an action against the defendant general contractor for unpaid contract balances and extras on a hotel construction project.

The parties agreed to bifurcate the trial to determine the limitations issue first.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period did not begin until a 2009 judgment in a related action, claiming he believed a set-off agreement existed and that he was unsophisticated in legal matters.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge and records to discover his claim by the fall of 2007 at the latest.

As the claim was issued in April 2010, more than two years after the claim was discoverable, the action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The respondent, Roswita Zgraja, brought a motion seeking advanced costs, compensation, and the right to cross-examine the applicant on his affidavits in a guardianship dispute.

The court adjourned the claim for advanced costs and dismissed the claim for compensation without prejudice, noting it should be brought by way of application rather than a motion.

The court granted the request to cross-examine the applicant, finding that despite the expiration of previous timetables, the moving party had made efforts to comply and the evidence sought was relevant to allegations of misappropriation.

Following a personal injury trial in which the plaintiff succeeded and obtained damages exceeding pre‑trial settlement offers, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court considered the costs discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the cost consequences relating to Rule 76 simplified procedure.

Although the damages awarded were within the simplified procedure monetary threshold, the court found it was reasonable for the plaintiff to proceed under the ordinary procedure given the seriousness of the injuries, the defendant’s firm denial of liability, and the procedural complexity including a jury trial that was later discharged.

The court held that Rule 76 should not deprive the plaintiff of costs and that the plaintiff’s favourable settlement offers justified partial indemnity costs before the first offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Costs were fixed at $84,100 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff brought a negligence action after suffering a fractured shoulder in a fall at a restaurant step leading into a private party room.

The court considered the occupier’s duty of care under s. 3(1) of the Occupier’s Liability Act and whether the restaurant took reasonable steps to ensure patrons were safe.

Evidence showed staff failed to follow established protocols for escorting guests and warning them about the step, and the step lacked illumination or other safety features.

The court found the warning sign inadequate and concluded the occupier breached its statutory duty.

However, the plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for failing to watch where she was walking as she approached the step.

General damages of $50,000 and limited special damages were awarded, reduced by contributory negligence.

During a jury trial for a slip and fall claim at a restaurant, the plaintiff moved to strike the jury notice and discharge the jury after the defendant called witnesses whose evidence had not been disclosed prior to trial.

The defendant also failed to produce relevant safety manuals in its affidavit of documents.

The court found that the defendant's ongoing failure to make full and timely disclosure created evidentiary complexities that would be difficult for a jury to properly weigh.

The court granted the motion, struck the jury notice, and ordered the trial to proceed by judge alone.