Susanne M. Sviergula

This order grants the motion of the defendants, Carehaus Properties Inc. and Darren Voros, allowing their crossclaim to proceed and confirming it was never deemed dismissed.

The court also orders the responding parties, IHA Canada Inc., Louise Desjardins, and William Kerr, to pay the moving parties $6,500.00 in costs within 30 days, with interest accruing at four percent per year from February 8, 2025.

The Corporation of the City of Ottawa moved to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing its action for delay and to reinstate the action.

The motion was opposed by some third parties.

The court applied the test for setting aside a dismissal order for delay, finding that the City provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, consistently intended to prosecute the action, and acted promptly to address the dismissal.

The court also determined that the opposing parties would not suffer significant prejudice from the reinstatement.

The motion was granted, reinstating the main action and automatically reviving derivative third-party claims.

This motion addressed whether a main action and a third-party action, stemming from a property dispute involving an encroaching structure, should be heard concurrently or sequentially.

The Plaintiffs sought a combined hearing, while the Defendants and Third Parties preferred separate proceedings.

The court, emphasizing judicial efficiency and fairness, determined that the intertwined factual and legal issues, particularly concerning the appropriate equitable remedy for the admitted trespass and the allocation of financial responsibility among all parties, necessitated a single, consolidated trial.

The motion for concurrent hearings was granted to avoid multiplicity of actions and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The defendant law firm, Victor Vallance Blais LLP, brought a motion to dismiss or stay an action by its former client, Deirdre Moore, alleging professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court found that Moore's statement of claim failed to establish a causal link between the alleged breaches and the claimed damages, thus disclosing no reasonable cause of action for negligence or breach of fiduciary duty.

The claim for negligent infliction of mental distress was also found to be unpleaded.

While the action exhibited some characteristics of vexatious litigation due to Moore's multiple prior lawsuits against the firm, it was not dismissed on that ground.

The court struck the statement of claim but granted Moore leave to amend her claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and stayed the action pending the resolution of Moore's ongoing matrimonial litigation, as the outcome of that litigation would inform the viability of her claims against the law firm.

The appellant brought a motion on the day of the appeal hearing to remove counsel for the respondent from the record and to strike a paragraph from an affidavit dated January 9, 2017.

The appellant also requested an adjournment of the appeal to permit cross-examination of the respondent on his affidavit.

The court rejected the adjournment request and declined to hear the motion due to insufficient notice, having been filed on the same day as the appeal hearing.

The appeal proceeded as scheduled and the appellant's motion was dismissed with costs awarded to counsel for the respondent.

The plaintiffs loaned money secured by a mortgage, allegedly relying on a property appraisal prepared by the defendant.

The borrower defaulted immediately, and the property was eventually sold at a loss.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant appraiser for negligence and breach of contract.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the action was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding the plaintiffs knew they would suffer a loss and had sufficient facts to sue more than two years before commencing the claim.

The plaintiff moved to set aside an administrative dismissal of a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident and to extend the time to set the action down for trial.

The proceeding had been dismissed after repeated failures to meet trial‑setting deadlines under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying the established factors for setting aside an administrative dismissal—including explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice—the court found the delay largely attributable to counsel error and that the defendant had not demonstrated actual prejudice.

The complexity of parallel accident litigation and prior defence consents to extensions rebutted any presumption of prejudice.

The dismissal order was set aside, but costs of the motion were awarded to the defendant and made payable by the plaintiff’s counsel.

The defendants brought summary judgment motions seeking dismissal of a personal injury claim arising from a teeth whitening procedure performed by a dental hygienist.

The court held that allegations concerning negligent performance of the procedure required expert evidence regarding the applicable standard of care.

Because the plaintiff failed to provide admissible expert evidence meeting the requirements of Rule 53.03, the claims for negligent performance and breach of contract were dismissed.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial on whether the plaintiff gave informed consent, as the parties presented conflicting evidence regarding disclosure of the risk of burns.

The court also held that expert evidence was not required to determine whether the material risk of burns had been disclosed, and that the issue of potential vicarious liability of the dentists for any breach of disclosure duty remained for trial.