Thomas Hawkins

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing seeking various forms of relief, including an order preventing the registrar from dismissing the action for delay.

Counsel for one defendant delivered notice requiring that the motion be heard orally under Rule 37.12(5)(d).

During a case conference, the court declined to grant an open-ended order preventing administrative dismissal and instead directed the plaintiffs to request a status hearing before the case management judge.

The court further directed that if the plaintiffs wished to proceed with the motion, they should promptly obtain a hearing date in consultation with defence counsel.

The defendants brought motions to strike various portions of a statement of claim in an action alleging wrongful dismissal, defamation, conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and intentional infliction of mental distress.

The court considered whether numerous allegations offended the pleading requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rules 25.06 and 25.11.

Some paragraphs were struck as irrelevant, speculative, or lacking material facts, including portions relating to unrelated background allegations and speculative assertions.

Other allegations, including those concerning conspiracy and alternative pleadings regarding defamatory communications, were found to sufficiently plead material facts and were allowed to stand.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to provide further particulars for certain allegations and granted leave to amend where appropriate.

The plaintiff moved for leave under Rule 48.11(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to restore an action to the trial list after it had been struck off.

The court applied the four-factor framework governing restoration motions, including whether delay was intentional, whether there was inordinate and inexcusable delay, whether the plaintiff rebutted any presumption of prejudice, and whether the defendant demonstrated actual prejudice.

The court found the delay was not intentional or contumelious and that the action had originally been set down for trial within a reasonable period after commencement.

The plaintiff provided evidence addressing delay and asserting no prejudice, while the defendant produced no concrete evidence of actual prejudice beyond general assertions.

Balancing the factors and the interests of the parties, the court granted leave to restore the action to the trial list and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs for the indulgence.

The defendant municipality brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s civil action for failure to comply with multiple interlocutory cost orders.

The plaintiff had failed for several years to pay costs awarded in prior proceedings, including $10,000 ordered following dismissal of an appeal and additional costs awarded on subsequent motions and appeals.

The court considered Rule 60.12 and subrule 57.03(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorize dismissal or other sanctions where a party fails to comply with interlocutory orders, including orders for payment of costs.

Finding that the plaintiff persistently refused to comply with cost orders, repeatedly delayed the action, and demonstrated no intention of satisfying the outstanding obligations, the court concluded that dismissal was the appropriate sanction.

The action was dismissed with costs.

The moving defendants sought costs after the plaintiff discontinued a defamation action arising from online criticism of a municipal mayor during an election campaign.

The court considered whether the action constituted Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

Based on the timing of the action, the absence of a demand letter, the use of a notice of action without a statement of claim, and the plaintiff’s failure to provide evidence explaining the litigation, the court inferred that the proceeding was intended to silence political critics.

Exercising discretion under Rule 23.05(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the defendants were successful parties following discontinuance and were entitled to costs.

Enhanced costs were awarded due to the SLAPP nature of the litigation.

The plaintiff moved under subrules 37.14(1)(c) and (2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing the action for delay.

Applying the four‑factor test from Reid v. Dow Corning Corp., the court found the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the litigation delay but established that the missed trial‑set‑down deadline resulted from inadvertence, that the motion to set aside was brought within a reasonable time, and that the defendants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice arising from the delay.

Considering the contextual approach endorsed in appellate authority, the court concluded that the absence of material prejudice justified setting aside the dismissal despite the plaintiff’s shortcomings.

The action was reinstated subject to directions requiring prompt filing of the trial record and completion of mediation, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the responding defendants’ costs.

The moving plaintiff sought to set aside a registrar's dismissal for delay and obtain leave to file a substantially expanded amended statement of claim in contamination litigation.

Applying a contextual approach under rule 37.14 and related jurisprudence, the court found the delay had adequate explanation in light of counsel changes, document-production disputes, and evolving contamination evidence.

The court also held the proposed amendments did not plead a new cause of action, and alternatively found limitation issues unsuitable for determination on a pleadings motion.

The dismissal order was set aside, leave to amend was granted subject to limitation defences, costs were fixed against one responding party, and costs as between the plaintiff and the railway were reserved to the trial judge.

The moving defendants sought to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury action for failure to pay a previous costs award and failure to comply with an interlocutory order regarding undertakings.

The Master declined to dismiss the action, finding the plaintiff was impecunious.

The defendants also sought production of the plaintiff's accident benefits file from a subsequent motor vehicle accident and orders for two additional independent medical examinations.

The Master ordered the plaintiff to produce relevant documents from the subsequent accident benefits file and to attend the requested independent medical examinations with a neuropsychologist and a psychiatrist to ensure trial fairness.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing a medical malpractice action as abandoned under Rule 48.15(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and to extend the time for service of the originating process.

The court applied the Reid factors governing relief from registrar dismissal orders, considering the explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness in bringing the motion, and prejudice to the defendant.

The delay arose primarily from severe personal tragedies affecting the plaintiff’s former counsel, which rendered him unable to practice and resulted in the plaintiff being unaware that her action had not been prosecuted.

The court found that the plaintiff acted promptly once aware of the issue and that the defendant had not demonstrated actual prejudice from the delay.

The registrar’s dismissal order was therefore set aside and late service of the notice of action and statement of claim was validated.

The moving party sought leave under Rule 60.07(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to issue a writ of seizure and sale more than six years after judgment relating to a motor vehicle accident claim assigned to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

The responding party had filed a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and listed the Fund as an unsecured creditor.

The court held that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act binds the Crown and that s. 69.2(1) imposes a stay of proceedings preventing creditors from enforcing provable claims once a consumer proposal is filed.

The judgment debt was a provable claim in bankruptcy and therefore enforcement remedies, including issuing a writ of seizure and sale, were barred during the proposal process.

Leave to issue the writ was denied.

The defendants moved for several orders in a wrongful dismissal action, including injunctive relief restricting the plaintiff’s direct contact with them and sanctions for the plaintiff’s failure to pay multiple outstanding costs awards.

The court held that a master lacked jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunctive relief under the Courts of Justice Act and adjourned that portion of the motion to be heard by a judge.

The court found the plaintiff had failed to pay four costs orders totalling $6,160 and that no appeals remained pending.

Applying Rules 57.03(2) and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court rejected the plaintiff’s claimed inability to pay and concluded that sanctions were warranted.

The action was stayed until the outstanding costs are paid, with leave to the defendants to seek dismissal if payment is not made within three months.

The moving defendants sought leave under Rule 29.02(1.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to issue a third party claim against an alarm monitoring company in an action alleging failure by insurance brokers to obtain adequate insurance coverage for stock spoilage.

The plaintiff opposed the motion on the basis that adding the third party would cause delay and prejudice.

The court held that leave should be granted unless the plaintiff would suffer meaningful prejudice, and found no evidence that witnesses or documents had been lost due to the delay.

The court also held that limitation period concerns were not determinative at the leave stage because the discoverability provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002 might postpone the running of the limitation period.

Leave to issue the third party claim was granted and service by courier on the proposed third party was validated.

The moving defendants sought sanctions after the first plaintiff failed to comply with earlier court orders requiring answers to undertakings and refused questions from discovery and payment of previously ordered motion costs.

The court considered Rules 57.03 and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing costs enforcement and sanctions for non‑compliance with interlocutory orders.

Although some progress toward compliance occurred and the delay was partly explained by counsel’s involvement in a lengthy trial and administrative issues with payment of photocopying invoices, the court found prolonged non‑compliance with two court orders.

The court held that the defendants were justified in bringing the motion and were more affected by the delay than responsible for it.

Costs of the motion were awarded against the first plaintiff.

The defendant brought a motion under the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to answer certain undertakings and refused questions arising from examinations for discovery.

The court applied the relevance test under Rule 31.06(1) and reviewed multiple refused questions to determine whether they related to matters in issue, particularly the ownership of coins held in a safety deposit box.

Most questions were found to be irrelevant or speculative and did not need to be answered, though one question relating to an alleged event in Israel was ordered answered.

The court also addressed alleged improper interruptions by plaintiff’s counsel during discovery and directed counsel to conduct future examinations consistently with established principles governing discovery conduct.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the defendant.

The moving party sought an order under Rules 15.03(4) and (5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure declaring that his former lawyers had no right to assert a lawyer’s possessory lien over documents belonging to him.

The law firm had represented the moving party in two civil actions and claimed unpaid legal fees exceeding $150,000, asserting a lien over litigation documents after being discharged without cause.

The court held that the law firm was entitled to assert the lien given the material unpaid balance and the circumstances of discharge.

However, the court noted that a substantial portion of the accounts may be statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and reduced the potential exposure accordingly.

The motion was conditionally resolved by permitting release of the documents if the moving party granted a collateral mortgage as security for up to $75,000; otherwise the motion would be dismissed.

The plaintiff moved for leave to amend the statement of claim under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reaffirmed that leave to amend should generally be granted unless non-compensable prejudice would result, but amendments may be refused where they constitute an abuse of process or fail to plead necessary material facts.

Several proposed amendments were denied because they asserted negligence, breach of trust, fiduciary duty, and duty of care without pleading the material facts required under Rule 25.06(2).

One proposed amendment was also rejected as inconsistent with the plaintiff’s own discovery evidence.

Limited amendments were permitted, portions of an affidavit disclosing mediation communications were struck, and the defendants were awarded costs.

The moving defendants sought leave under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to amend their joint statement of defence, counterclaim, crossclaim, and third party claim by delivering separate pleadings and adding additional allegations and claims.

The court reaffirmed that leave to amend should generally be granted unless non-compensable prejudice would result, but scrutinized the proposed amendments for improper pleadings, including arguments, evidence, irrelevant matters, and procedural history that should instead be addressed through motions.

Numerous proposed paragraphs were rejected for pleading evidence, lacking particularity, or raising issues relating to pre-trial disclosure.

Leave was granted in part for both moving parties to amend their pleadings and third party claims, subject to extensive limitations and corrections.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to one set of responding defendants for part of the motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion under subrule 5.04(2) and rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to amend its statement of claim to add a new defendant in a property contamination dispute.

The proposed defendant opposed the amendment on the basis that the applicable limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 had expired.

The court held that the moving party failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of discoverability under s. 5(2) of the Act, including evidence of when the claim was discovered or what investigative steps had been taken.

Because the evidentiary record did not establish any doubt about the expiry of the limitation period, the proposed claims were considered clearly statute barred.

The motion to amend was dismissed, though the moving party was permitted to renew the motion with proper evidence within 45 days.

The moving defendant sought a stay of the action against one corporate plaintiff on the basis that the corporation had failed to comply with statutory filing obligations.

Evidence established that the corporation had not filed its initial return, annual returns, or several income tax returns as required under the Corporations Information Act.

Under s. 18(1) of that Act, a corporation in default of required filings lacks the capacity to maintain a proceeding in an Ontario court without leave.

The court found the corporation had provided no explanation for its defaults and had not sought leave to continue the action.

The action was therefore stayed as against that plaintiff under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act until further order.

The defendants brought parallel motions for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure against corporate and partnership plaintiffs who alleged losses exceeding $1,000,000 arising from a trading incident involving brokerage services and trading software.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

The court reviewed the financial circumstances of the plaintiffs and their principals and considered whether they could reasonably post security or obtain a letter of credit.

Finding that ordering security would effectively force abandonment of a claim that was not plainly devoid of merit, and that the plaintiffs were effectively impecunious, the court declined to require security for costs.

The motions were dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.