Steven Baldwin

The defendants and the third party, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Transportation), agreed to dismiss the third party claim against the Ministry but disagreed on costs.

The court found that it was not unnecessary for the defendants to add the Ministry to ascertain the identity of the correct contractor, and that the Ministry could have avoided the costs claimed by providing the requested information.

The court ordered the dismissal without costs to any party.

During a family law trial, the respondent sought to qualify his long-time accountant as an expert to provide opinion evidence on his income for spousal support purposes.

The applicant opposed the request on the basis that the evidence was not necessary and the accountant lacked independence.

The court applied the Mohan and White Burgess frameworks and concluded that the proposed expert evidence was not necessary.

Furthermore, the court found the accountant lacked specific expertise in support income determination and lacked the requisite independence and impartiality, having served as the respondent's accountant for nearly four decades.

The request to admit the expert opinion evidence was denied.

A court-appointed receiver sought summary judgment for payment under a manufacturing contract after the defendant failed to pay the contract price for equipment that had been delivered and for which the defendant had already been paid by its own customer.

The defendant asserted legal and equitable set-off based on alleged claims arising from earlier contracts and potential future warranty liabilities.

The court held that the prior claims were unliquidated and unrelated to the contract at issue and therefore could not ground legal or equitable set-off.

The alleged contingent warranty claims were speculative and unsupported by evidence.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the receiver.

The plaintiff's vehicle was impounded by police in August 2009.

She filed a public complaint and later commenced a civil action in October 2013.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff moved to strike the defendants' motion, alleging the supporting affidavit was based on hearsay and violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the affidavit proper and the documentary evidence sufficient.

The court granted summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known she had a cause of action by August 2009, making her 2013 claim out of time.

The parties sought costs following competing motions in a family law proceeding.

The applicant was substantially successful on her motion for financial disclosure and an advance on equalization, while the respondent was successful on his motion for exclusive possession of the cottage.

The court determined that both parties acted reasonably and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, applying maximum allowable hourly rates.

After assessing the respective costs, the court ordered a net set-off amount of $6,753.47 payable by the applicant to the respondent.