Sylvia Corthorn

The applicants (Suncor/Auger) brought a motion to compel the third party (EllisDon) to properly answer discovery undertakings related to electronic documents from its "EdgeBuilder System" database.

EllisDon had produced a portable drive containing 37,899 documents but without unique identifiers or sufficient searchability for efficient litigation.

The court found EllisDon failed to meet e-discovery requirements, emphasizing the need for unique identifiers and co-operation in discovery planning as per the Sedona Canada Principles.

The motion was granted, ordering EllisDon to produce a revised, accessible, and searchable version of the portable drive with unique identifiers and to engage in discovery planning.

No costs were awarded due to the parties' mutual failure to engage in discovery planning earlier.

The defendant in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings and refused questions from an examination for discovery.

The court granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to fulfill outstanding undertakings, serve an affidavit of documents, and re-attend for a continued examination for discovery.

The court also permitted the defendant to exceed the standard seven-hour discovery limit by an additional three hours and forty minutes due to the complexity and value of the claim.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal after the defendant failed to deliver a statement of defence.

The plaintiff, a 60-year-old office manager with 12 years of service, was terminated for alleged cause, which he denied.

The court found the plaintiff was terminated without cause and awarded 24 months' salary in lieu of notice, plus vacation pay and benefits, totaling $157,645.

The court also ordered the defendant to amend the plaintiff's Record of Employment to reflect dismissal without cause and awarded substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a foreign monetary judgment obtained in Virginia against the defendant.

The defendant, who was self-represented, did not appear.

The court found multiple procedural deficiencies, including a failure to properly serve the motion materials, a lack of evidence that a prior stay of proceedings had been lifted, and missing pages from the foreign judgment order.

The court adjourned the motion and ordered the plaintiff to rectify the procedural defects and effect proper substituted service before proceeding.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment.

Four days prior to the return date, the defendant's counsel obtained an order removing themselves as lawyer of record.

The defendant's president attended the motion and requested an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The plaintiff opposed the adjournment, arguing prejudice regarding its construction lien priority.

The court granted a brief adjournment on strict peremptory terms, noting the recent amendment to Rule 15.04 requiring service of removal motions on all parties, and cautioned that parties may need to attend such motions to protect their interests.

The defendants, Sarazen Realty Inc., Colin Sarazen, and Keith Sennett, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff Gerald McClelland's action for commission payment, unjust enrichment, and negligence related to a property sale.

The court found that McClelland's claims raised genuine issues requiring a trial, citing significant deficiencies and credibility issues in the defendants' affidavit evidence, including reliance on opinion evidence, hearsay, and improper "adoption" of evidence.

The court determined that these issues could not be resolved through the enhanced powers of summary judgment or a mini-trial.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for interim child support, occupation rent, and the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The court found the applicant was entitled to needs-based interim spousal support due to the significant income disparity and depletion of his savings.

The applicant was ordered to pay interim child support and a proportionate share of section 7 expenses based on his farming income.

The respondent's motions for occupation rent and the sale of the matrimonial home were dismissed, as there was insufficient evidence for occupation rent and it was unreasonable to force the sale of the home before equalization was determined.

The applicant father sought a divorce order and adjustments to his child support obligations, including the exclusion of severance pay and RRSP withdrawals from his income, and the use of his actual 2018 income for prospective support.

The respondent mother sought relief with respect to arrears of child support and s. 7 expenses.

The court denied the applicant's requests to exclude severance pay and RRSP withdrawals, finding he failed to meet the evidentiary burden under s. 17 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court also ruled that the annual child support adjustment should be based on the 2017 Line 150 income as per the separation agreement, not the actual 2018 income.

The respondent's claim for child support arrears was largely granted, and she was awarded a portion of special expenses despite non-compliance with the agreement's terms, due to the parties' past practice.

The divorce was to proceed by basket motion.

This endorsement addresses the importance of the open court principle in the context of motions or applications for approval of settlements reached by, or on behalf of, minors or persons under a disability.

The plaintiffs sought an order dispensing with service of relevant materials on the opposing party, citing solicitor-client and litigation-settlement privilege.

The court reviewed the legal framework for dispensing with service and sealing orders, emphasizing the high bar set by the open court principle and the Sierra Club criteria.

The court found the evidence insufficient to justify dispensing with service, concluding that claims of privilege alone are generally not enough to override the public interest in transparency and the court's parens patriae jurisdiction in such matters.

The plaintiffs' request to dispense with service was dismissed, and they were ordered to serve the defendants with the complete motion record.

This endorsement addresses costs following a mini-trial where Premier Drycleaners' claim for rectification was dismissed.

Burnford Realty Limited, the successful party on the rectification issue, sought substantial indemnity costs.

Premier sought costs payable in the cause, arguing Burnford's late clarification of its position on a 2007 document prolonged the mini-trial.

The court found that Burnford's conduct in delaying an admission fell under Rule 57.01(1)(g).

However, Premier also contributed to the mini-trial's duration by introducing an issue outside its scope, falling under Rule 57.01(1)(e).

Considering the conduct of both parties, the court ordered that there would be no costs payable for the mini-trial.

The plaintiff pedestrian was struck by the defendant's vehicle while crossing a street.

The defendant was found 100% liable.

The plaintiff had a highly complex pre-existing medical history, including chronic pain, sarcoidosis, and melanoma.

The court found the plaintiff suffered a mild traumatic brain injury and other injuries from the collision, which exacerbated his pre-existing conditions and impaired his ability to manage them.

The court assessed damages for the plaintiff and his family members, but reduced the total awards by 25% applying the crumbling skull principle, as the plaintiff would have been detrimentally affected by his pre-existing conditions regardless of the accident.

The injuries were found to meet the statutory threshold.

The plaintiff, as assignee of a bankrupt company's trustee, previously obtained summary judgment setting aside the transfer of several properties to the defendant.

A remaining issue concerned a mortgage on three of those properties, which had been discharged by a non-party numbered company controlled by the defendant prior to the bankruptcy.

The numbered company sought equitable relief to set aside the discharge and re-register the mortgage, claiming the discharge was a unilateral mistake.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the discharge was a deliberate, fully-informed decision made to clean up title, and did not meet the demanding preconditions for the equitable remedy of rectification.

The plaintiff, Gore Mutual Insurance Company, sought a declaration that the defendant, Sovereign General Insurance Company, was required to provide coverage for the theft of a pick-up truck from Orr Motors, based on its garage policy.

Sovereign brought a motion for summary judgment, relying on a policy exclusion for leased vehicles.

The court found that the evidentiary record was insufficient to fully appreciate the case, particularly regarding the lease agreement's commencement and the reason the truck was on the lot at the time of theft.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to deficiencies in both parties' evidentiary submissions.

The plaintiffs, successful in their negligence claims at trial, sought costs.

However, they deliberately withheld the terms of their contingency fee agreement with their insurer and individual clients.

The defendants argued for disclosure, citing the principle of indemnity in costs assessment.

The court found the non-disclosure intentional and crucial for properly fixing costs.

The court ordered plaintiffs' counsel to file the fee agreement under seal for judicial review to determine its compliance with O. Reg. 195/04 and to identify the terms requiring disclosure to the defendants for costs calculation.

The appellant, Warren Tremblay, appealed his convictions for assault causing bodily harm and breach of probation, as well as the imposed sentence.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred in failing to consider the element of intentional application of force for the assault charge, and misapprehended significant evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The court also found errors in the reliance on a 9-1-1 recording as compelling evidence and the finding of corroboration.

Consequently, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

The applicant sought an order for partition and sale of the matrimonial home and for a portion of the proceeds to be held in trust pending resolution of family law issues including child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court dismissed the application without costs, finding that relief related to the matrimonial home should be sought within the existing family law litigation (commenced in 2013) to avoid prejudicing parties' rights and to address all related issues holistically.

The court also noted the applicant's delay in pursuing the matter and her own contribution to the urgency claimed, as she was a joint tenant and defaulted in the bank's action.

The applicant mother applied to be appointed as the guardian of property for her adult son, who sustained a brain injury as a child and received a significant personal injury settlement.

The court found the son incapable of managing property based on a capacity assessment.

However, the court declined to approve the proposed management plan at this time, finding that direct evidence from financial representatives was required to properly compare the proposed investment portfolio against structured settlement options, particularly regarding the son's future housing and attendant care expenses.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence and note him in default, alleging failure to comply with a Master's order regarding a US bankruptcy petition and failure to pay costs awards totalling $29,000.

The self-represented defendant made submissions during the hearing but could not immediately point to evidence in the voluminous record to support his claims of compliance.

The court issued an interim endorsement setting a timetable for the parties to provide written submissions identifying the relevant evidence in the record.

Following the applicant's successful motion for exclusive possession of the family home and a temporary restraining order, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle.

The court found the applicant was entitled to costs on a substantial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer to settle, and on a full indemnity basis thereafter.

After reducing the claimed hours for being excessive, the court fixed the costs payable by the respondent at $22,900.

The applicant sought exclusive possession of the parties' Ottawa home and a restraining order against the self-represented respondent.

The court granted the applicant interim exclusive possession of the home, finding that the respondent's psychological, emotional, and other abusive behaviour constituted "violence" under s. 24(3)(f) of the Family Law Act.

An interim restraining order was also issued, as the applicant had reasonable grounds to fear for her safety.

The respondent's cross-motion was adjourned due to his failure to properly file necessary financial and other documents.