Susanne Sviergula

The third parties brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to disclose their real estate lawyer's files relating to the purchase of their property.

The plaintiffs opposed, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the plaintiffs' former counsel had previously undertaken to produce the files and had thereby waived any claim to privilege.

The motion was granted and the plaintiffs were ordered to produce the files.

The applicant sought costs of $34,160 on a full recovery basis against a third-party witness who unsuccessfully opposed a motion to be questioned prior to trial.

The third party argued he was a non-party and sought his own costs.

The court found the third party was a party for the purposes of the motion under the Family Law Rules and that the applicant was the successful party.

Applying principles of proportionality and considering the respective offers to settle, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $10,000.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the moving party sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The responding parties had attempted to resile from Minutes of Settlement and made unproven allegations of fraud and breach of trust against the moving party.

The court found that the responding parties' conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings and that their unproven allegations of dishonesty warranted an exception to the usual costs rules.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the moving party, excluding the costs of preparing the costs submissions.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage and its agent brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce Minutes of Settlement signed by all parties at a pre-trial conference.

The defendant vendors opposed the motion, arguing they did not understand the English proceedings or the settlement document due to a language barrier, and did not intend to release their counterclaim.

The court rejected the language barrier argument, noting the defendants had retained unilingual English professionals for the underlying transaction, conducted prior pleadings in English, and were represented by bilingual counsel at the pre-trial conference.

The court found a clear meeting of the minds on the essential terms of the settlement and granted summary judgment enforcing the agreement.

The plaintiff's action was administratively dismissed for delay after missing the deadline to set the matter down for trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the action, while the defendants brought a cross-motion to reinstate their counterclaim if the plaintiff was successful.

Applying the Reid factors, the court found that the plaintiff adequately explained the litigation delay and that the defendants would not suffer actual prejudice if the action proceeded.

The court set aside the dismissal, reinstated both the action and the counterclaim, and ordered the matter to be set down for trial.

The defendant dentist brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a dental negligence action as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendant argued that the claim was discoverable when the plaintiff complained about failed bridgework and threatened legal action during treatment.

The court held that the limitation period did not begin at that time because the plaintiff reasonably relied on the dentist’s explanations and continued remedial treatment.

Evidence showed the dentist’s negligent treatment continued throughout the remaining course of care and lacked informed consent.

The court concluded that the claim was not discoverable until the dentist‑patient relationship ended and that commencing litigation earlier would not have been an appropriate means of remedy while treatment was ongoing.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision that set aside the administrative dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

The court applied the two-part test for leave to appeal under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's application of the Reid principles.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s administrative dismissal of a personal injury action for delay.

The court reviewed the contextual factors governing reinstatement of dismissed actions, including promptness of the motion, explanation for delay, inadvertence, abandonment of the claim, and prejudice to the defendants.

Although the explanations for litigation delay were weak, the court found evidence that the plaintiff continued to pursue the action through efforts to answer undertakings and had not abandoned the claim.

The defendants’ evidence of prejudice, including alleged fading memories, was found to be vague and insufficient to outweigh the interests of justice in determining the matter on its merits.

The registrar’s dismissal order was therefore set aside and the action permitted to proceed subject to an expedited timetable.