Tanisha G. Tulloch

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, brought an action against the trustees of her late mother's estate, seeking her share of the estate and alleging breaches of trust.

The trust was created in Quebec, the assets were located in Quebec, and the trustees resided outside of Ontario.

The defendants moved to stay or dismiss the action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or was forum non conveniens.

The court granted the motion, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario, that Quebec was the more appropriate forum, and that the forum of necessity doctrine did not apply despite the plaintiff's physical and financial limitations.

The action was stayed and service outside Ontario was set aside.

The defendants moved to enforce Minutes of Settlement, which the plaintiffs resisted, arguing the settlement was at an end due to non-compliance with a 30-day payment clause.

The court found that the 30-day clause applied only to the initial settlement option, not to the alternative options triggered by a negative tax opinion.

The court determined that the defendants' election to pay the full settlement amount within a reasonable time was valid, and that the plaintiffs' resistance stemmed from "settlement remorse." The motion to enforce the settlement was granted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of their action, which arose from a real estate transaction.

The action was dismissed by the Registrar after the plaintiffs failed to set the matter down for trial in accordance with a court-ordered timetable.

The court applied the four-part test for setting aside a dismissal and found that the plaintiffs' delay was intentional, as they had prioritized an alternative resolution through the Ministry of the Environment over the litigation.

Given the significant delay in bringing the motion and the prejudice to the defendants, the court refused to set aside the dismissal.

Following the granting of summary judgment dismissing an action as statute-barred, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court held that while the defendants were entirely successful in establishing that the plaintiffs had missed the limitation period, success alone does not justify substantial indemnity costs.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not acted improperly or unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings by advancing their claim and defending the summary judgment motion.

Accordingly, the defendants were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Costs were fixed at $34,610.66 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable forthwith.

The defendants, a law firm and its partners, moved for summary judgment dismissing a solicitors’ negligence and breach of fiduciary duty action brought by a corporate client and its shareholder arising from a loan transaction.

The court considered whether the claim was barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The evidentiary record demonstrated that the shareholder had knowledge of the loan negotiations, participated in communications with the lender and counsel, and arranged appraisal materials in support of the financing well before the action was commenced.

As a result, the plaintiffs discovered the material facts underlying the claim more than two years before issuing the statement of claim.

The action was therefore statute‑barred and there were no genuine issues requiring a trial.