Thanasi Lampropoulos

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment on an unpaid mortgage.

The defendant sold the property and paid the discharge amount under protest, disputing several administrative and legal fees.

The court applied section 8(1) of the Interest Act and disallowed most of the disputed fees, finding they lacked evidentiary support or constituted prohibited penalties, allowing only a discharge statement fee.

The issue of the plaintiff's allegedly undercharged legal fees was adjourned for further negotiation or submissions.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' defamation action as a SLAPP suit under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court applied the presumption under section 137.1(7) that the defendants are entitled to full indemnity costs.

Finding the requested amount reasonable for a complex motion, the court awarded the defendants costs of $63,572.84 on a full indemnity basis.

This endorsement addresses the costs of two successful motions brought by the plaintiffs, Barry Picov and Picov Farms Ltd. The first motion sought to amend their Statement of Claim to substitute Robar Residence Corporation as plaintiff, and the second sought to set aside an ex parte costs order against them in favour of Genserve Systems Inc. The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs for both aspects of their motion, finding that while the plaintiffs' counsel bore some responsibility for the initial error and evidential record, the defendants' opposition was not entirely justified, particularly Genserve's stance on setting aside the ex parte order.

Total costs of $19,689 were awarded to the plaintiffs, apportioned among the defendants.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for consent certification of a class action for settlement purposes, approval of the settlement agreement, approval of class counsel fees and disbursements, approval of a representative plaintiff honorarium, and discontinuance of the action for online-only teachers.

The class action alleged misclassification of teachers as independent contractors, leading to unpaid Employment Standards Act entitlements.

The court approved all requested relief, finding the settlement fair and reasonable, the cy-près distribution appropriate, and the fees and honorarium justified given the risks and efforts involved.

This decision addresses the certification of a common issue regarding the aggregate assessment of damages under s. 24(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, in a class action concerning improper access to personal health information.

Following the certification of the class action itself, the court considered whether a 'base amount' or 'minimum award' of damages could be determined in the aggregate for all class members, without individual proof of loss.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments that aggregate damages were only applicable to causes of action with a deterrence element or that the case was factually distinguishable from precedent.

It concluded that a common issues trial judge could determine a base amount of damages given that every class member's privacy was breached in the same manner.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action alleging that document reviewers, hired as independent contractors by Deloitte and Procom, were actually employees entitled to benefits under the Employment Standards Act.

The court found some basis in fact for an employer-employee relationship with Deloitte but not with Procom or ATD (a predecessor).

The court certified three common issues against Deloitte but adjourned the motion, requiring the plaintiff to revise the class definition and replace the representative plaintiff due to reliability and disinterest concerns.