Susan E. Healey

The plaintiffs hired the defendants for cottage interior finishing and landscaping, paying a $542,400 deposit specifically to pre-purchase and store armour stone.

The defendants failed to purchase the stone and concealed this fact from the plaintiffs.

Upon discovering the truth, the plaintiffs terminated the contract and sued for the return of the unearned funds.

The court found the defendants liable for fundamental breach of contract, breach of a Quistclose trust, and breach of the duty of honest performance.

The individual defendant was held personally liable for knowingly participating in the breach of trust, and the plaintiffs were awarded $474,819.97 in damages.

The moving party sought an extension of time to perfect an appeal from an order upholding the assessment of her former solicitor's accounts.

The moving party had initially filed her appeal in the Court of Appeal, which lacked jurisdiction, and engaged in a lengthy series of meritless motions and collateral attacks despite clear judicial directions to seek an extension in the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no reasonable explanation for the extraordinary delay, no genuine merit to the proposed appeal, and significant prejudice to the responding party due to the moving party's vexatious conduct and failure to pay multiple prior costs awards.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to complete an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The defendant failed to pay the required deposit and failed to close the transaction despite multiple extensions.

The court found the defendant breached the agreement and awarded the plaintiffs damages representing the difference between the contract price and the property's market value on the final scheduled closing date, plus carrying costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from dealing with estate assets and sought orders directing third parties to release hospital records, telephone records, and the defendant's will.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to strike the Statement of Claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and for being frivolous and an abuse of process.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a recognizable duty of care owed by the defendant, who was acting as attorney for personal care pursuant to a valid power of attorney.

The court struck the claim without leave to amend and dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding it was motivated by personal turmoil and collateral purposes rather than a viable legal claim.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action arising from a COVID-19 outbreak at Roberta Place Long Term Care Centre in Barrie, Ontario, from January 8 to February 18, 2021.

During the outbreak, 129 residents tested positive for COVID-19, resulting in 73 resident deaths (57% of the resident population).

The plaintiffs alleged systemic gross negligence by the defendants in failing to properly plan for and respond to the pandemic and implement adequate infection prevention and control (IPAC) measures.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding with three classes: residents who tested positive, estates of those who died from COVID-19, and eligible family members.

The court found that the plaintiffs met all five certification requirements under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including establishing common issues regarding duty of care, standard of care, breach, causation, and punitive damages.

The court rejected certification of aggregate damages as a common issue due to lack of evidence of a workable methodology.

This decision addresses the costs consequences following a successful summary judgment motion by the plaintiff, R & P Petroleum Inc., for payment of outstanding invoices.

The court considered the parties’ written submissions and awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, with an elevated amount due to a threatening and abusive email sent by or on behalf of the defendant, Ishvinder Singh Virk.

The court found the defendants’ conduct, including the email, warranted an award of $75,000 in costs to the plaintiff, to be paid jointly and severally by the defendants.

This decision concerns a failed real estate transaction between Brighton Breeze Ltd. and Noel Property Management Ltd. for a waterfront property in Brighton, Ontario.

The dispute centered on a notice registered on title by a neighbouring condominium corporation, which led to the collapse of the sale.

The court found that Noel was entitled to rely on the annulment clause in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) after Brighton failed to waive its objection to title.

The court dismissed Brighton’s claim for specific performance, ordered the discharge of the Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), and granted summary judgment in favour of Noel.

This is a costs decision following a successful motion for summary judgment by the defendant in a malicious prosecution claim.

The court reviews the parties’ submissions on costs, the applicable legal framework, and the principle of proportionality.

Ultimately, the court fixes costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant at $75,000 inclusive of HST, considering fairness, the nature of the offer to settle, and the context of the litigation.

The plaintiff moved for leave to bring a motion to have four personal injury actions arising from two slip and falls and two later motor vehicle collisions tried together, and also sought to amend one action to increase the damages claim and move it from simplified procedure to ordinary procedure.

The court denied leave in relation to the oldest action that had already been set down for trial, holding that further delay would be grossly prejudicial and that no workable plan had been presented for bringing all actions to trial together.

The court also declined to include the later slip-and-fall action with the two motor vehicle actions because of delay, uncertainty about trial length, and incomplete trial readiness.

However, the court ordered on an unopposed basis that the two motor vehicle actions be tried together or one after the other as directed by the trial judge, and granted leave to amend the pleading in the later slip-and-fall action.

Costs of $2,500 inclusive were awarded to each opposing defendant.

The plaintiff, Marper Holdings Limited, sought summary judgment to enforce a mortgage debt against Foxpark Development Corporation, Carl Strand, and John Strand.

The court found that the defendants had defaulted on a $2 million loan secured by a mortgage, and that the individual defendants were liable as guarantors.

The court also dismissed the defendants' counterclaim, finding it disclosed no cause of action.

Judgment was granted for the full amount claimed, plus interest and costs, and Marper was granted possession of the property.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing Adam Bullock’s claim for malicious prosecution against Jane Doe, arising from criminal charges of sexual assault that were later withdrawn.

The decision reviews the high threshold for establishing malicious prosecution, especially against private individuals, and finds that Doe’s conduct—while misleading in some respects—did not compromise the independence of the police investigation or the decision to lay charges.

The court concludes that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial on the first element of the test for malicious prosecution, and that the remaining elements would also not support Bullock’s claim.

This decision concerns the fixing of costs following a successful summary judgment motion by Marian Massaar against her daughter Lauren Moneck and son-in-law Anthony Moneck.

The court found that Anthony’s unreasonable conduct and failure to provide evidence that a loan was a gift justified substantial and full indemnity costs to Marian and Lauren, respectively.

The court reviewed the relevant legal principles and awarded costs to Marian ($58,885) and Lauren ($43,000), both fixed and inclusive.

The applicants sought to quash two municipal by-laws (2020.16 and 2020.57) enacted by the Township of Ramara concerning shorewall construction and maintenance in Lagoon City.

The applicants argued the by-laws were ultra vires, contrary to provincial statute (the Mara Act), and enacted in bad faith, primarily due to mandatory aesthetic concrete requirements that increased costs and the transfer of appeal powers from the Lagoon City Parks & Waterway Commission to the Township.

The court found the by-laws illegal as they were inconsistent with the Mara Act by removing cost considerations and appeal rights, and were enacted for a collateral purpose (imposing a concrete aesthetic and circumventing existing permit applications).

The court also found sufficient indicia of bad faith, including collusion, interference with municipal officers, and lack of proper public notice.

The by-laws were quashed, and the Township was ordered to grant the applicants' permit applications under the previous by-law.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful Motion to Change brought by the respondent, Marcel Marriott, with the exception of spousal support.

The applicant, Kim Marriott, failed to submit her cost outline or submissions despite multiple reminders, leading to the respondent's costs request proceeding unopposed.

The court found that the respondent's formal offers to settle would have placed the applicant in a better position than the motion's outcome.

The applicant's conduct regarding increased transportation costs was deemed unreasonable.

The court reviewed the respondent's Bill of Costs and, considering the factors in s. 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, fixed costs at $9,500 to be paid by the applicant to the respondent.

Following successful motions to strike the plaintiffs' $5 million claim as statute-barred, the defendants sought their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the requested amounts were disproportionate and suggested a combined award of $10,000.

The court reviewed the complexity of the historical claims, the extensive document retrieval required, and the plaintiffs' conduct which prolonged the proceedings.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded costs of $85,000 to each defendant.

The plaintiff, Marian Massaar, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of a $200,000 advance made to her daughter, Lauren Moneck, and son-in-law, Anthony Moneck, for their first home purchase.

Anthony contended the funds were a gift, while Lauren affirmed they were a loan.

The court found that the funds were indeed a loan, based on Marian's consistent intention, contemporaneous documents, and evidence of regular repayments by both defendants.

The court dismissed Anthony's arguments, finding his evidence lacked credibility, and granted summary judgment in favour of Marian for the outstanding loan amount.

Lauren's crossclaim for contribution and indemnity against Anthony was also granted.

This decision addresses the costs following a successful motion by the Defendant, Hantover Canada Inc., for a permanent stay of proceedings.

The court had previously ordered a permanent stay, finding the Plaintiff's action duplicative, an abuse of process, and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $86,843, citing the Plaintiff's unreasonable conduct, non-compliance with court directions (e.g., page limits for submissions), and the serious, unfounded allegations of fraud, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff, who is self-represented, opposed the costs award, primarily attempting to relitigate the original motion and claiming impecuniosity.

The court found the Plaintiff's conduct unreasonable and sanctioned it with an elevated cost award, noting his history of multiple actions and unpaid cost awards.

While acknowledging impecuniosity can be a factor, the court determined it would not shield the Plaintiff from accountability for his reprehensible conduct.

The court awarded the Defendant $82,000 in substantial indemnity costs.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final consent order regarding child and spousal support, and sought reimbursement for travel expenses incurred due to the applicant mother's unilateral relocation with the children.

The court denied the termination of spousal support, upholding the original order's terms.

However, child support was retroactively adjusted based on updated incomes and the children's status as dependants.

The court ordered the applicant to reimburse the respondent for past travel expenses, offsetting the respondent's child support arrears to nil, and mandated the applicant to share future travel responsibilities for parenting time.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of female cadets who allegedly suffered sexual misconduct while enrolled in the Cadet Program.

The plaintiffs alleged systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of s. 7 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the certification motion.

While the negligence claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action, the other claims were struck.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to provide some basis in fact that there was an identifiable class of two or more persons, that the claims raised common issues, or that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, as the allegations would require highly individualized inquiries.

The plaintiff, Liebgard Scharfenberg, sought dependant's relief from the estate of her deceased husband, August Karl-Heinz Scharfenberg, under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The Deceased had made no provision for her in his will, citing a cohabitation agreement that released all claims to one another's estate.

The court found that the plaintiff was a dependant at the time of the Deceased's death, but ultimately dismissed her application for support.

The court found the plaintiff's credibility to be low and concluded that she had been financially opportunistic throughout the relationship, having divested herself of a significant asset from a previous marriage without rational explanation, and that she had not suffered financial detriment from the relationship with the Deceased.

The court held that it would be unconscionable to provide support from the estate given her actions and self-sufficiency.