Thomas J. Carey

Following a successful wrongful dismissal claim in which the plaintiff was entirely successful, the court considered costs.

The plaintiff sought partial costs of $80,000 (with substantial costs calculated at approximately $115,000) plus disbursements.

The court found that the matter was not complex and that the defendant had unreasonably delayed proceedings, including failure to cooperate in scheduling discoveries and providing late answers to undertakings.

The court awarded counsel fees of $50,000 plus HST and disbursements of $3,846.70 plus HST, declining to award the full amount sought given the short and uncomplicated nature of the trial.

A long-serving employee brought a claim for constructive wrongful dismissal against his employer, a municipal taxi licensing commission.

The plaintiff alleged that following a change in board leadership in December 2019, he was subjected to a campaign of belittlement, micromanagement, and harassment that created a toxic work environment, ultimately forcing him to take stress leave.

The employer denied wrongful dismissal, arguing the plaintiff quit and defended its actions by alleging numerous instances of misconduct and dereliction of duty.

The court found the plaintiff credible and established that he was constructively dismissed due to the employer's breach of the implied duty to treat him with respect and decency.

The court awarded 24 months' notice plus aggravated damages.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate scale and quantum of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff Jordan’s claim for fire loss under an insurance policy.

The court rejected the defendants’ request for substantial indemnity costs, finding that the circumstances did not justify such an award.

The court fixed costs at $10,000 for each defendant, inclusive of disbursements, emphasizing proportionality and the absence of scandalous or outrageous conduct.

The court, following guilty pleas and a joint submission from counsel, found Darren James Gaspe to be a Dangerous Offender and imposed a total determinate sentence of seven years and three months, less time already served, followed by an eight-year Long Term Supervision Order.

The decision was informed by expert and Gladue reports, as well as the input of both counsel and the offender.

The court recommended that Mr. Gaspe be considered for a Correctional Service Canada Healing Lodge or a facility offering the Pathways Program, given his Indigenous identity.

The sentence aims to balance punitive and restorative objectives to protect society and support the offender’s rehabilitation.

The plaintiffs, John Jordan and William Nielson, sought damages from Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group and Finnegan Insurance Brokers Ltd. regarding a policy of insurance on a hunting camp and outbuildings destroyed by fire in 2018.

The plaintiffs alleged that Finnegan failed in its duty to ensure adequate insurance coverage and acted in bad faith, and that Commonwell improperly closed the file while issues remained.

The defendants moved for non-suit, arguing that replacement insurance was not available for this type of property and that the plaintiffs had been referred to arbitration.

The court granted the summary judgment motions, dismissing the claims against both defendants, finding no credible evidence to support the plaintiffs’ claims and that the settlement cheque issued was appropriate.

This is an appeal from a trial decision that found a s.10(b) Charter breach and excluded evidence, leading to an acquittal on an '80+' offence.

Counsel agreed the trial judge erred in finding the s.10(b) breach and vacating the acquittal.

The Crown sought a conviction, while the respondent requested a new trial due to an insufficient record for a fresh s.24(2) analysis.

The appeal court set aside the acquittal but declined to register a conviction, remanding the case for a new trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, citing the lower court's expertise in such matters and concerns about the sufficiency of the record for appellate review.

This endorsement addresses a breach of contract lawsuit where the defendant failed to attend a pre-emptory virtual hearing and had a history of intentional delay.

The court found the defendant's actions constituted intentional delay to avoid responsibility.

Consequently, the defendant's defence was struck, and judgment was issued in favour of the plaintiffs, with costs.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages resulting from alleged property interference and a blockade during a lawful strike by the defendant union.

Both parties brought summary judgment motions regarding the appropriate forum for the dispute.

The Superior Court held that it lacked jurisdiction, finding that the dispute arose from a labour dispute covered by a retroactive collective agreement.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendants' motion, ruling that the Ontario Labour Relations Board is the proper forum.

This endorsement addresses a dispute over costs related to a motion to strike that did not proceed.

The plaintiff argued the motion was abandoned, while the defendants claimed it was rendered moot by the plaintiff's amendments.

The court found that the defendants' motion was not made moot by the amendments and that the defendants had strategically abandoned it.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs, noting the defendants' decision to pursue costs against an individual who had lost employment.

Eric Linseman, the grandson of the deceased Raymond Edward Linseman, brought an application for dependant support from his grandfather's estate under the Succession Law Reform Act.

Eric, who had lived with his grandfather for many years due to his own challenges and his mother's inability to provide care, argued he was a dependant.

The estate trustees (Eric's mother and uncle) opposed, asserting Eric was not dependent and had received sufficient funds outside the will.

The court found a clear relationship of dependency, noting the grandfather's consistent support and the inadequacy of the existing trust fund for Eric's long-term needs.

The court also criticized the executors' conduct, including the wrongful transfer of estate property and destruction of documents.

The application for dependant support was granted, including the transfer of the deceased's property to Eric, but the claim for retroactive child support against Eric's mother was dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant sought a declaration of a right-of-way over the respondent's property for vehicle parking.

The parties settled the main issue via minutes of settlement, leaving only the matter of costs for the court to determine.

The applicant sought substantial costs, arguing full success and moderate complexity.

The respondent argued the application was unnecessary and could have been resolved amicably.

The court found no basis to award costs to the applicant, concluding the litigation was not complex or necessary, and that the applicant's claims of obstruction were unsubstantiated.

The plaintiff, Zubin Hooshangi, brought a 45-paragraph Statement of Claim and a subsequent Amended Claim against the defendants, Jason Emilio Ruffolo and Limestone Property Management, seeking damages for defamation, fraudulent concealment/misrepresentation, and injunctive relief.

The claims arose after the Condominium Management Regulatory Authority (CMRAO) denied the plaintiff's certification, based on the defendants' input that he had not worked the required 3000 hours.

The defendants moved to strike the claim under Rule 20.01(3) for showing no cause of action, arguing it was frivolous and vexatious.

The court dismissed both the original and amended claims without leave to amend, finding no recognized cause of action for "fraudulent concealment," insufficient particulars for the defamation claims, and no basis for injunctive relief.

The court also found the plaintiff's asserted work hours to be "beyond belief and not capable of being proven," concluding that the allegations were untenable, scandalous, and made for a collateral purpose (certification), and that the Licensing Appeal Tribunal was the appropriate forum for the certification dispute.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the defendants.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment and specific performance regarding agreements of purchase and sale, the plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the defendant acted in bad faith and considered the plaintiffs' Rule 49 offers.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' requested amount of $41,187, finding it excessive given the unified representation of the three plaintiffs.

Instead, the court awarded the plaintiffs substantial indemnity costs fixed at $17,500, using the defendant's own full indemnity cost outline as a benchmark for reasonableness.

The defendant mother brought a motion to stay her son's action against her pending the resolution of related corporate litigation in Toronto.

The son alleged that millions of dollars were transferred to his mother by his father's companies to defraud creditors.

The court dismissed the motion to stay, finding it to be a strategic stalling tactic and noting that the son appeared to have a strong case regarding the unexplained transfers.

The Moen defendants brought a motion seeking a confidentiality order to protect proprietary product design and manufacturing information, arguing it was highly sensitive and at commercial risk.

The plaintiffs and co-defendant Motion Specialties opposed, asserting the motion was premature, unnecessary, and lacked sufficient evidentiary basis to meet the high onus for such orders.

The court dismissed the Moen defendants' motion, finding they failed to demonstrate an important commercial interest or the absence of reasonable alternative protective measures.

The court concluded that the information's level of secrecy did not warrant confidentiality beyond the implied undertaking rule and criticized the Moen defendants for causing unnecessary delay in the litigation.

The plaintiffs sought specific performance of three Agreements of Purchase and Sale for neighboring homes, alleging the defendant wrongly repudiated the contracts.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the action, discharge of a Certificate of Pending Litigation, and damages.

The court found that the plaintiffs were ready, willing, and able to close the transactions, and that the defendant acted in bad faith by prematurely terminating the agreements, refusing a reasonable extension, and attempting to rely on a "time is of the essence" clause despite its own conduct and a conflicting document registration agreement.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, ordering specific performance, and dismissed the defendant's cross-motion.

The applicant father brought an emergency motion to enforce an existing access order after the respondent mother arbitrarily withheld the child based on unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse.

The court found the mother's actions were motivated by spite and undermined the parenting order.

The court granted the father's motion, ordered the enforcement of the existing parenting order, dismissed the mother's emergency motion, and awarded costs to the father.

This decision concerns a costs order following a motion where the parties reached a consent order on all issues except costs.

The respondent father sought full indemnification costs, alleging the applicant mother's conduct was vexatious and in bad faith due to her non-acquiescence to access requests based on unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse.

The applicant mother argued that the allegations were untested and that a last-minute settlement offer should not result in a costs award.

The court found that it could not make findings of bad faith without tested evidence and that awarding costs after a last-minute amended offer acceptance would undermine settlement negotiations.

Consequently, the costs of the resolved motion were reserved to the trial judge.

The plaintiff, ZD Metal Products Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, Metamag Inc., concerning alleged breaches of contract for the manufacture of two industrial ovens.

The plaintiff sought approximately $400,000 USD for a defective aluminum furnace and an undelivered magnesium furnace.

The defendant argued that the aluminum furnace's failure was due to the plaintiff's improper maintenance and operation, and that the magnesium furnace contract was not fully complied with by the plaintiff, including payment and inspection.

The court found a multitude of genuine issues of fact requiring a trial, including whether the aluminum furnace was defective upon delivery, if the defendant failed to repair it, if the plaintiff caused the damage, and issues related to the magnesium furnace contract's terms and plaintiff's compliance.

Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was dismissed with costs.

Two commercial truck drivers were charged under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act after 11 foreign nationals were discovered hidden in the sleeping cab of their truck at the Canada-US border.

The accused brought a motion arguing no case to answer, asserting the Customs Act should apply, which the court dismissed.

At trial, the court rejected the driver's testimony denying knowledge of the passengers, finding him guilty based on his attempt to evade secondary inspection.

The co-driver, who was resting in the passenger seat, was acquitted as the court found his denial of knowledge could reasonably be true and there was insufficient evidence of willful blindness.