Sylvia Corthorn

Paul Boone, a person under disability, and his parents, challenged the constitutionality of Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 5 of O. Reg. 195/04, arguing they compel disclosure of solicitor-client or litigation privileged information, thereby infringing s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The court dismissed both constitutional challenges, finding a lack of factual basis to support the assertions of discriminatory effect and concluding that the impugned provisions do not mandate or inevitably require the disclosure of privileged information.

The motion for approval of a partial settlement was adjourned for the plaintiffs to provide the necessary evidentiary support.

The plaintiff sought critical illness insurance benefits after being diagnosed with cancer, two months after he had requested cancellation of his policy.

Both parties moved for summary judgment.

The court found that the policy unambiguously required a diagnosis to occur while coverage was in force.

Since the diagnosis occurred after the policy was cancelled due to the plaintiff's own initiative and non-payment of premiums, there was no coverage.

The court also denied relief from forfeiture, as the policy had terminated due to non-payment, not a breach, and thus no property was forfeited.

The plaintiff's motion was dismissed, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

The applicant sought a declaration that her estranged father's will was valid, an order appointing her as Estate Trustee, and a finding that the will resulted in a partial intestacy making her the sole heir-at-law.

The will attempted to disinherit the applicant but failed to provide for the residue after the named beneficiaries predeceased the testator.

The court found the will valid, appointed the applicant as Estate Trustee without a bond, and declared her the heir-at-law of the residue due to the partial intestacy.

In the context of ongoing oppression remedy actions, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their pleadings on the eve of the continuation of the trial, necessitating an adjournment.

The plaintiffs subsequently sought an adjournment of their own motions to amend in order to cross-examine a deponent.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs for the trial preparation thrown away and the motions, payable as a condition precedent to the plaintiffs proceeding with their motions.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct in the litigation, including late decision-making and failing to properly plead discoverability, unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings and warranted sanction.

The court awarded the defendants $37,450 in substantial indemnity costs, payable by the plaintiffs as a condition precedent to proceeding with their motions to amend.

The defendant in a $195 million procurement dispute served summonses on three non-party witnesses for examination prior to a summary judgment motion.

The non-parties and plaintiffs moved to quash the summonses, arguing they were an abuse of process due to short notice, failure to provide relevant pleadings, and overly broad document requests.

The court agreed, finding the defendant's conduct in serving the summonses and refusing a brief postponement constituted an abuse of process.

The summonses were quashed, and the defendant's motion to compel answers to refusals was dismissed.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff successfully proved the validity of the deceased's 2013 will, the parties sought a determination on costs.

The plaintiff sought full or substantial indemnity costs, while the participating defendant argued for reduced partial indemnity costs due to the plaintiff's conduct.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs but reduced the amount payable by the defendant by 50% due to the plaintiff's lack of diligence in the discovery process.

The court also limited the plaintiff's indemnification from the estate, ordering her to personally bear the remaining costs resulting from her mismanagement of documents.

The plaintiff obtained a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a motion without notice against properties owned by corporations controlled by his son, alleging the son misappropriated funds while acting as his attorney for property.

The defendants moved to set aside the CPL for failure to make full and fair disclosure, or alternatively to discharge it under the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that while the plaintiff failed to disclose material facts regarding the son's legal representation, the CPL would have been granted regardless.

The court also declined to discharge the CPL, finding a triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the properties and that the balance of equities favoured maintaining the CPL.

The applicant was entirely successful in its application to have the respondent declared a vexatious litigant.

The applicant sought its costs of the application on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $5,832.18.

The respondent, who was self-represented, did not file responding materials.

The court reviewed the claimed fees and disbursements, reducing the hourly rates for junior counsel and the law clerk to reflect local rates, and reducing the disbursements claimed for photocopying and process serving.

The court fixed the applicant's costs at $4,785.00 on a partial indemnity scale.

Following a jury trial in a personal injury action where the plaintiff was awarded $698,112.58 in damages, the court determined the plaintiff's entitlement to costs.

The parties agreed on most rates and disbursements but disputed the senior counsel's hourly rate for 2017 and 2018, and whether the costs should reflect the net recovery after an assignment of collateral benefits.

The court fixed senior counsel's rate at $375 per hour, declined to reduce costs based on the uncertain future of collateral benefits, and awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs totaling $466,185.76.

Following a trial where the plaintiffs were awarded damages for a motor vehicle accident, the defendant brought a motion for a conditional assignment order of the plaintiff's Statutory Accident Benefits (SABS).

The parties disagreed on the effective date of the assignment.

The court held that the effective date of the assignment is the date of the reasons for judgment, but the assignment is conditional upon and triggered by the payment of the judgment in full.

In a post-trial ruling following a motor vehicle accident trial, the court determined the terms of an assignment of the plaintiff's long-term disability (LTD) benefits to the defendant's insurer.

The court held that the defendant is entitled to a credit for the gross amount of the LTD benefits, regardless of the tax deducted at source by the LTD insurer.

The court also ruled that the effective date of the assignment is the date of the jury's verdict, not the date the judgment is paid, and ordered the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff for reasonable costs incurred in preserving her right to the LTD benefits.

The plaintiff sought to prove a 2013 will executed by the deceased, which left the family farm to her and the residue to the deceased's nieces and nephews.

The defendant brother challenged the will, alleging it was not signed by the deceased or not signed in the presence of two witnesses, relying on the discovery of an unwitnessed copy of the will shortly after death.

The court accepted the evidence of the two attesting witnesses and found that the will was duly executed in accordance with the Succession Law Reform Act.

The 2013 will was declared valid and the plaintiff was granted a Certificate of Appointment as Estate Trustee.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment on a status review application, seeking an extended society care order for a two-year-old child with a plan for adoption.

The mother, who struggled with addiction and mental health issues, did not respond to the motion.

The court granted the extended society care order, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The court also determined that the order could not be silent on access, as requested by the Society, and instead explicitly ordered no access for either parent, while leaving open the issue of the child's access to her sibling and maternal grandparents.

The applicant employer sought an order declaring its former employee a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Following the end of his employment, the respondent initiated numerous unsuccessful judicial and non-judicial proceedings against the applicant and others, and sent hundreds of abusive and threatening emails.

The court found that the respondent's conduct met the criteria for a vexatious litigant, as he persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted proceedings to re-litigate determined issues, brought actions for improper purposes, and engaged in a strategy of abuse and harassment.

The application was granted, prohibiting the respondent from instituting or continuing proceedings without leave of the court.

The applicants, charged with robbery, assault, and weapons offences, brought a pre-trial application to exclude evidence obtained through intercepted communications.

The court previously found that the wiretap authorization was issued without reasonable and probable grounds, violating the applicants' s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court found the state conduct to be at the more serious end of the spectrum and the impact on the applicants' privacy rights to be significant.

The court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and ordered the intercepted communications excluded.

The applicant father commenced a family law application in Ottawa regarding custody and access of the parties' infant child.

The respondent mother, who resided primarily in the Toronto area with the child, brought a motion to transfer the venue to Newmarket or Toronto.

The court determined that the child's 'real home' and ordinary residence was with the respondent in Bradford, Ontario.

Consequently, the court ordered the application transferred to Newmarket, the closest courthouse to the child's ordinary residence.

The applicants brought a pre-trial application challenging a wiretap authorization, alleging a breach of their s. 8 Charter rights.

The authorization was sought in the investigation of a homicide that occurred 7.5 years prior.

The court conducted a facial inquiry of the supporting affidavit and found that it failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds that the wiretap would afford evidence of the homicide.

Specifically, there was no credible evidence or reasonable inference that the targets maintained contact or would communicate about the homicide after such a significant passage of time.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that judicial notice could be taken of ongoing communication, distinguishing the facts from cases involving active criminal organizations.

The sub-facial inquiry, which examined the Project Proposal, did not undermine the affidavit's veracity regarding the primary purpose of the investigation.

Consequently, the court found that the evidence obtained through intercepted communications was obtained in violation of the applicants' s. 8 Charter rights.

The application was scheduled to continue for argument on the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

A motion was brought to appoint the plaintiff's wife as his litigation guardian after he suffered a stroke and brain hemorrhage.

The court adjourned the motion, finding that the medical evidence of incapacity was insufficient because it relied on hearsay rather than a direct affidavit from the capacity assessor.

Furthermore, the court noted that the proposed litigation guardian was a co-defendant in the proceedings and may have an adverse interest, contrary to the requirement that a litigation guardian be indifferent to the outcome.

In an action concerning a procurement process for Visa Application Centre services, the parties sought to settle the terms of a confidentiality order governing the disclosure of Third Party Information.

The sole issue was the wording of a paragraph dictating the scope of submissions that affected Third Parties could make on a future motion to determine confidentiality.

The plaintiffs argued for a narrower scope, while the defendant and Third Parties argued for a broader scope.

The court adopted the plaintiffs' proposed wording, finding it addressed issues clearly relevant to the Third Parties without tying the hands of the judge hearing the future motion, but noted this did not necessarily preclude Third Parties from raising other issues.

The plaintiffs sought approval of solicitor-client accounts proposed by two law firms that represented them in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The accounts were based on a previously approved contingency fee agreement.

The court approved the first lawyer's account for the main action but denied fees for the third party claim, as he undertook no risk regarding that claim.

The court approved the second law firm's account for the main action but reduced their proposed fees for the third party claim, finding the full contingency amount would be unreasonable.

The net settlement funds payable to the injured plaintiff were increased as a result.