Thomas J. McEwen

The applicant brought a motion seeking reconsideration and variance of a prior order requiring the respondent to produce a redacted shareholder agreement.

The applicant argued that Schedule “A” contained additional information about the type and number of shares held by shareholders which was necessary to assess corporate power dynamics and share value.

The court reviewed the schedule but held that the additional information did not justify altering the prior ruling.

The court found the information confidential to the private company and of little relevance to the applicant’s claims.

Concluding that the motion was an attempt to re‑litigate issues previously decided, the court dismissed the motion and awarded costs to the respondent.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking findings of contempt against a former employee and his company for failure to comply with prior court orders requiring cessation of competitive activities, return of confidential information, and attendance for mediation and examination.

The evidence showed the individual repeatedly ignored court orders, failed to attend examinations, continued competing using confidential information, and attempted to evade the court’s jurisdiction by travelling abroad.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were in contempt and that the conduct was deliberate, ongoing, and aggravated by attempts to destroy evidence.

The court imposed significant sanctions including a $50,000 fine, struck the individual’s statement of defence, ordered attendance for discovery, and authorized issuance of a warrant of committal for incarceration if compliance was not achieved.

Following a contempt motion between the plaintiff and defendants, the court addressed costs.

Although the defendants successfully defended the contempt motion, the court found it more likely than not that one defendant removed certain logbooks in contravention of court orders, which militated against awarding costs to the defendants.

The plaintiff also failed on the motion and therefore was not entitled to costs.

However, a non-party that participated in the proceedings was awarded substantial indemnity costs due to its limited but necessary involvement.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the non-party $25,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The defendants moved to enforce Minutes of Settlement reached at a civil pre‑trial requiring payment of $100,000 and execution of a release.

The plaintiffs argued the settlement was not binding because the wording of the release had not been finalized and alleged their former solicitor lacked authority and exerted undue influence.

The court held that a settlement agreement is a binding contract once essential terms are agreed, and the requirement for a release does not prevent formation of a binding agreement.

The court also reaffirmed that a solicitor of record has ostensible authority to bind clients in settlement absent clear notice to the contrary.

The motion was granted and the settlement enforced, with the plaintiffs ordered to deliver the executed release and the defendants to pay the settlement funds.

Following a successful motion brought by the applicant, the court considered the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis, while the respondent argued that no costs should be ordered.

The court held that although the applicant succeeded, the respondent’s position was not entirely without merit and there was no egregious conduct justifying full indemnity costs.

Taking into account the complexity of the motion, the preparation required, and certain duplication of work by counsel, the court awarded partial indemnity costs with limited recoverable work.

The defendants brought a motion under r. 21.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to dismiss the action on the basis that it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff alleged breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act relating to unpaid amounts for labour, materials, and equipment provided on a construction project.

Although the plaintiff had commenced an earlier action for breach of contract concerning the same project, the court held that it was not plain and obvious from the pleadings that the limitation period had expired.

The court found that unresolved factual issues—such as the status of holdback funds and the timing of payments—could affect the limitation analysis.

Accordingly, the motion to strike the claim as statute-barred was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the defendants and a non-party corporation for allegedly failing to comply with prior court orders requiring the delivery of aircraft engine logbooks.

The moving party argued the materials had been removed or withheld in breach of orders compelling their production.

The court held that contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and found the evidence against the non-party was entirely circumstantial with no plausible motive established.

While the evidence suggested it was possible the individual defendant removed the logbooks, the court concluded the record did not establish the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt due to alternative explanations and lack of direct evidence.

The contempt motion was dismissed.

Following a damages award of $5,000 plus pre-judgment interest in a civil action, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The plaintiff sought disbursements and legal fees.

The court found the disbursements reasonable and awarded the full amount requested.

However, because the damages fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, the court held that the legal fees claimed were excessive and reduced the fee component before taxes.

Following multiple unsuccessful summary judgment motions between the plaintiffs and one defendant, the court considered the issue of costs between those parties.

The plaintiffs had moved for summary judgment against co-defendants, while the responding defendant brought his own motion to dismiss the claims and a cross-claim, and the plaintiffs brought a cross‑motion against him.

All motions were unsuccessful.

The court held that the result between the parties was decidedly mixed and that no party had achieved sufficient success to justify a costs award.

During a case conference in a medical negligence action, the court addressed outstanding procedural steps required for trial preparation.

The plaintiffs were ordered to complete all outstanding undertakings by a specified deadline and to deliver their expert reports shortly thereafter.

The court also scheduled a pretrial conference date.

The endorsement reflects routine case management directions to advance the litigation toward trial.

The respondent husband brought a motion to set aside Minutes of Settlement and a subsequent court order, arguing he lacked capacity, the applicant wife failed to disclose her pension, and the agreement was unconscionable.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the husband understood the agreement, the wife had disclosed the pension, and the settlement was not unconscionable as it reflected a fairly negotiated compromise between the parties.

Following trial judgment awarding damages for breach of a software services agreement, the court determined prejudgment interest and costs.

The dispute concerned the appropriate start date for prejudgment interest and the reasonable quantum of partial indemnity costs.

The court held that prejudgment interest should run from the date the parties’ relationship effectively ended rather than the earlier project “go-live” date.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the plaintiff’s claimed legal fees by 10% while allowing disbursements in full.

Costs were fixed at $58,103.68 and prejudgment interest ordered at 1.3% from November 28, 2008.

At the commencement of a lengthy construction dispute trial, the defendants sought to set aside an earlier bifurcation order so that liability and damages could be tried together, while the plaintiff moved to strike the defendants’ jury notice.

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to manage the trial process and set aside the earlier order, finding that trying all issues together would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and that evidentiary overlap justified a single trial.

The court also held that the case involved exceptionally complex factual, technical, and legal issues, including numerous expert reports, extensive documentary evidence, multiple causes of action, crossclaims, and potential apportionment under a Pierringer agreement.

Given these complexities, the court concluded that justice would be better served by a judge-alone trial rather than a jury.

The jury notice was therefore struck and the matter ordered to proceed on all issues before a judge.

The plaintiff brought an undefended action for defamation against two defendants regarding a letter distributed in their First Nations community.

The court dismissed the action against one defendant due to insufficient evidence of her involvement in creating or distributing the letter.

The court found the second defendant liable for defamation, as she signed the letter which imputed improper conduct to the plaintiff.

The court awarded $5,000 in general damages but dismissed claims for aggravated, punitive, and income loss damages due to lack of evidence.

A dispute arose following a fire at a heritage house unit within a condominium development regarding who had the right to control and conduct repairs to the damaged structure.

The unit owner sought an interlocutory and final injunction preventing the condominium corporation and insurer from proceeding with repairs and sought a declaration granting him exclusive authority over restoration.

The condominium corporation argued the declaration and condominium governance documents imposed the obligation to repair damage on the corporation and that the owner had failed to act within a reasonable time.

The court interpreted the condominium declaration and held the corporation had the right and obligation to carry out exterior and roof repairs to restore the property, while leaving interior renovation decisions to the unit owner.

The request for injunctive relief was denied and the corporation was authorized to proceed with exterior restoration.

The parties brought cross-motions to determine which school their four-year-old child should attend for junior kindergarten.

The applicant father sought to enroll the child in a French immersion and Aboriginal education program, supported by an Office of the Children's Lawyer recommendation.

The respondent mother sought to enroll the child in a neighbourhood school closer to her home, where the child's siblings attended.

The court declined to follow the OCL recommendation, finding that the lengthy bus commute required for the applicant's choice was too onerous for a four-year-old, and ordered the child to attend the neighbourhood school on an interim basis.

Following a successful motion by the defendants, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendants sought costs of both the motion and the underlying action.

After reviewing the parties' written submissions, the court held that the defendants were entirely successful and entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants in the amount of $3,500 plus GST.

The applicant sought declarations regarding the interpretation and enforcement of settlement Minutes and a third mortgage registered following a construction lien dispute in a residential townhouse development.

The respondent refused to provide partial mortgage discharges required to permit closings of individual unit sales, arguing the settlement lacked consideration, that defaults under a prior mortgage rendered its mortgage in default, and that the applicant breached standard charge terms.

The court rejected these defences, holding that valid consideration existed and that the mortgage and Minutes clearly required the respondent to provide partial discharges to facilitate sales.

The court granted declarations confirming the applicant’s right to register partial discharges and enjoined the respondent from withholding authorization for those discharges.

A request for a reference to determine damages was dismissed as premature.

Following earlier reasons on a motion, the court determined the issue of costs and related financial matters.

Although success on the motion was divided, the moving party succeeded against one defendant regarding recovery of a $90,000 refund.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $15,000 plus HST and certain disbursements against that defendant, while declining to order costs for other dismissed aspects of the motion.

The court also confirmed that $60,000 previously paid into court would remain there and declined to award prejudgment interest at a rate higher than that provided under the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant sought interim support from his late wife's estate and moved to strike portions of the respondents' affidavits.

The court adjourned the main application for support pending the resolution of a motion for directions, which resulted in several consent orders.

The court dismissed the motion for interim support, finding the applicant had significant assets and the estate was already covering the operating costs of the disputed cottage.

The court struck portions of the respondents' affidavits that dealt with irrelevant post-death events but declined to strike paragraphs addressing family dynamics that responded to the applicant's own evidence.