Talia Gordner

Following a prior costs endorsement, it came to the court's attention that the moving party had renewed an original motion for additional disclosure that had not been brought to the court's attention due to filing irregularities.

The court reviewed its prior costs order and limited the cost award to the sum associated with fake case references, staying the balance of the costs order pending a scheduled in-person hearing on the renewed motion.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion to strike the statements of defence filed by the self-represented defendants in two related fraud actions.

The court reviewed the motion materials and the responding party's correspondence, then set a schedule for responding materials, reply, and oral submissions rather than deciding the motion on the written record alone.

The responding parties were given until April 7, 2026 to file responding materials, with reply due April 17, 2026 and oral submissions scheduled for April 24, 2026.

The moving party defendants in a multi-defendant civil action brought a motion for dismissal of the action against them without costs.

The plaintiff municipality had settled the action with the moving parties.

Having regard to the consents filed, the unopposed defendants, and the defendants who had not responded despite being duly served, the court granted the motion and issued an order in accordance with the draft order filed.

Following the adjournment of the self-represented respondent's motion on a prior hearing date due to improper conduct — specifically the submission of fabricated legal authorities and misrepresentations to the court — the court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis for costs thrown away.

The self-represented respondent disputed the quantum, arguing costs should not exceed approximately $1,100.

The court found the respondent's submissions unconvincing and highlighted his failure to show remorse, his continued misrepresentations, and his abandonment of the renewed motion.

Costs were fixed at $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, representing both the costs of responding to the flawed factum and the totality of the responding party's efforts.

This decision concerns the costs of a motion brought by the Regional Municipality of Halton following a previous decision regarding "Wagg Orders" and the scope of disclosure.

The plaintiff sought clarification on sharing materials for a wrongful dismissal action.

The court found that the defendants' "purported consent" to the plaintiff's motion was not genuine and forced the plaintiff to proceed.

Although the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $9,894.76, finding the defendants' conduct, while not egregious enough for substantial indemnity, was ill-advised and necessitated the motion.

The court applied Rule 57 factors in determining the appropriate costs.

The Regional Municipality of Halton brought a motion seeking to amend two prior "Wagg Orders" to explicitly include a related wrongful dismissal action (the "Ohashi Wrongful Dismissal Action") within their scope for the purpose of document disclosure.

The defendants, the Ohashis, opposed the motion, arguing it was unnecessary and that declaratory relief was inappropriate.

The court, applying Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found that the omission of the wrongful dismissal action from the previous order was an oversight.

Consequently, the court granted the amendment, allowing Halton to produce the documents obtained under the Wagg Orders in the Ohashi Wrongful Dismissal Action, emphasizing that questions of relevance and admissibility would be determined by the trial judge.

The plaintiff successfully moved for the production of financial records related to the defendant from third-party financial institutions.

The plaintiff sought costs of the motion.

The defendant opposed the quantum but failed to file a costs outline as ordered.

The court awarded the plaintiff its costs on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive sum of $28,125.92, noting the defendant's conduct in expanding the issues and the failure to file a costs outline.

The plaintiff successfully moved for the production of financial records from third-party financial institutions related to the defendants.

The plaintiff sought costs of the motion on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued that costs should be left to the trial judge and contested the quantum, but failed to provide a costs outline.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $22,892.14 on a partial indemnity basis, noting the defendants' conduct in expanding the issues and their failure to file a costs outline.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion under Rule 30.10 for the production of financial records from non-party financial institutions relating to the defendant Snowball.

The action involves an alleged $23 million fraud scheme manipulating the plaintiff's procurement processes.

Snowball, a former employee, opposed the motion, arguing the records were not relevant, production was not necessary before discovery, and it would violate her privacy rights.

The court found the records were highly relevant to tracing the defrauded funds and assessing liability, and that pre-discovery production was necessary for the forensic accountants to complete their investigation.

The court also rejected the privacy arguments, finding no constitutional or statutory protection that would override the open court principle and the need for disclosure.

The motion was granted.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion under Rule 30.10 for the production of financial records held by third-party financial institutions relating to the defendants, alleging a complex procurement fraud scheme.

The responding defendants opposed the production of personal banking records but consented to the production of certain corporate records.

The court dismissed the contested portions of the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the requested documents were relevant to a material issue or that it would be unfair to proceed to discovery without them, applying the Ballard factors.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion under Rule 30.10 for the production of financial records held by non-party financial institutions relating to the defendants.

The action arose from an alleged $2.5 million fraud involving the manipulation of the municipality's procurement processes by a former employee and various vendors.

The former employee had previously been convicted of criminal fraud related to the same conduct.

The court granted the motion, finding that the records were highly relevant to tracing the misappropriated funds and quantifying the losses, and that it would be unfair to require the plaintiff to proceed to discovery without them.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that their privacy interests precluded production.

Lisa Snowball sought leave to appeal a Divisional Court order that had refused leave to appeal a Superior Court order.

The Regional Municipality of Halton moved to strike Snowball's motion for leave to appeal as frivolous, and Snowball brought a cross-motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in Snowball's motion for leave to appeal, reiterating that there is generally no appeal from an intermediate court's refusal of leave unless jurisdiction was mistakenly declined.

The fresh evidence did not alter the merits.

The Court granted Halton's motion to strike Snowball's motion for leave to appeal and denied Snowball's motion to adduce fresh evidence, awarding costs to Halton.

This endorsement addresses two motions before a single judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario: one by the Regional Municipality of Halton to strike a motion for leave to appeal brought by Lisa Snowball, and another by Lisa Snowball for leave to file fresh evidence on her motion for leave to appeal.

The judge determined that a single judge of the court lacks jurisdiction to hear either motion, as issues of jurisdiction regarding an appeal and motions for leave to appeal, as well as motions to adduce fresh evidence, must be determined by a panel of the court under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Consequently, the motions were ordered to be transferred to a panel for hearing and determination.

This endorsement addresses two motions before a single judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario: one by the Regional Municipality of Halton to strike a motion for leave to appeal brought by Lisa Snowball, and another by Lisa Snowball for leave to file fresh evidence on her motion for leave to appeal.

The judge determined that a single judge of the court lacks jurisdiction to hear either motion, as issues of jurisdiction regarding an appeal and motions for leave to appeal, as well as motions to adduce fresh evidence, must be determined by a panel of the court under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Consequently, the motions were ordered to be transferred to a panel for hearing and determination.

The plaintiff municipality brought a motion for an interim preservation order under Rule 45.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to ensure that documents and electronic devices seized by the police during a criminal investigation (Wagg items) were preserved pending the determination of the plaintiff's Wagg motion.

The plaintiff adduced uncontradicted evidence that the items were relevant to its civil fraud actions and that there was a real risk of spoliation if the items were returned to the defendants.

The court applied the factors from BMW Canada Inc. v. Autoport Limited and granted the interim preservation order to maintain the status quo and protect trial fairness.

The plaintiff sought an order to compel the sale of assets (a property, rural land, and vehicles) under Rule 45.01 and 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging asset deterioration and seeking payment into court.

The defendants raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing a Master could not vary a judge's preservation order or grant mandatory injunctive relief.

The Master declined jurisdiction, finding that compelling a sale would effectively set aside or vary existing preservation orders made by a judge, and that mandatory orders are exclusively for judges.

Alternatively, the Master found that even if jurisdiction existed, the relief would not be granted as the assets were adequately protected by existing orders and undertakings, and compelling a sale would prejudice the defendants and a non-party (Jonathan Rewa) without a proven claim.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant, Lisa Snowball, brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on her property and release funds held in trust, which the plaintiff, The Regional Municipality of Halton, opposed.

Halton alleged the property and funds were connected to a multi-million dollar fraud scheme involving Snowball's former boyfriend and Halton employees.

Snowball argued that Halton failed to make full disclosure when obtaining the CPL, acted in bad faith during negotiations, and that the plaintiff's expert evidence should be struck for non-compliance with Rule 53.03.

The Master rejected Snowball's preliminary arguments, finding Halton had presented "better evidence" for the CPL, did not act in bad faith, and had substantially complied with expert disclosure rules.

Applying the CPL discharge test, the Master found a triable issue regarding Halton's interest in the land, given the complex financial transactions and Snowball's inability to credibly explain her financial capacity.

Balancing the equities, the Master concluded that justice was better served by preserving the status quo, as the property was not unique and there was no evidence of an intended sale.

Snowball's motion was denied.

The defendants brought motions under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, alleging "theft of trade secret" related to shilajit in vitamin compositions.

The plaintiff cross-moved for leave to amend.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim of a "trade secret" was invalid because the information had been publicly disclosed through patent applications, thereby forfeiting any confidentiality.

Furthermore, the plaintiff had assigned all rights, title, and interest in the invention to Creative Nutrition Canada Corp. in 1991, thus lacking proprietary interest to assert any claim.

The court concluded that the statement of claim, even with proposed amendments, was certain to fail.

The plaintiff, Riva Plumbing Limited, brought a motion to consolidate its action (the "Riva Action") with a wrongful dismissal action brought against it by a former employee, Aleem Aziz (the "Aziz Action").

The court applied the threshold test for consolidation under Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that while there were some common facts, there were no common questions of law or fact of sufficient importance to warrant consolidation.

The court also considered factors such as avoiding multiplicity of proceedings (Courts of Justice Act s. 138) and achieving a just, expeditious, and least expensive determination (Rule 1.04).

It concluded that consolidation would not achieve a just outcome, particularly given the Aziz Action was proceeding under Simplified Rules, which would lose its advantages if consolidated with a complex action.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding parties.

The defendant sought costs after being partially successful on a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim.

The court found that while the defendant succeeded in obtaining a stay and requiring the plaintiffs to add her to an existing action, she had over-reached by seeking a complete dismissal of the claim.

Because the defendant's unsuccessful arguments consumed significant time and posed an existential threat to the plaintiffs' case, the court concluded that success was truly divided.

Consequently, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs of the motion.