T. Maddalena

Following a motion decided in favour of the applicant, the court received written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought costs of $28,157.62 on a solicitor and client basis, while the respondents argued for partial indemnity costs fixed at $10,000.

Applying Rule 57.01 and the principles from Boucher, the court found that the protracted litigation necessitated by the respondents' actions warranted costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court fixed the costs payable by the respondents to the applicant at $21,000 all-inclusive.

The applicant sought to enforce spousal support arrears through a notice of garnishment issued to three major banks.

The respondent filed a notice of dispute.

The banks provided inadequate or incomprehensible responses to the garnishment notices, despite the respondent's financial statement indicating he held assets at these institutions.

The court adjourned the garnishment hearing and ordered representatives from the three banks to attend the next hearing.

The applicant brought a motion to temporarily reduce his spousal support obligation from $25,800 per month to $5,300 per month, alleging a significant drop in income due to the loss of a major client.

The court found the motion premature because the applicant had failed to provide complete financial disclosure for the year in question, preventing the respondent's valuator from analyzing his income.

The motion was adjourned without a date, and the applicant was ordered to continue paying the full support amount until further order or agreement.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to move child support jurisdiction from Louisiana to Ontario and to continue a restraining order.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for Christmas access and to vacate the restraining order.

The court dismissed the applicant's jurisdictional motion on the basis of res judicata, as the issue had already been decided by both the Louisiana court and previously by the Ontario court.

The court adjourned the respondent's access motion because he had not commenced the court-ordered counselling required for supervised access.

The court continued the restraining order, finding the applicant had reasonable grounds for fear, and dismissed the respondent's motion to vacate it.

The defendant requested that the plaintiff's statement of claim be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reviewed the detailed pleading and found that it was not apparent on its face that the proceeding was abusive.

The court declined to make an order under Rule 2.1.01, noting that the defendants could still bring a proper motion to strike under other rules, and granted the defendants an extension to file their statements of defence.

The applicants sought a permanent injunction to prevent the municipality from removing derelict vehicles and debris from their property pursuant to a property standards order.

The applicants argued that the tenant was not properly served, that the vehicles constituted a legal non-conforming use, and that a Crown Patent exempted the property from municipal regulation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the property owner was properly served under the Building Code Act, that legal non-conforming use applies to zoning rather than property standards, and that a Crown Patent does not displace valid provincial and municipal legislation.

Following a nine-day trial for breach of contract, the court determined costs.

The defendant was awarded damages of $34,730 on his counterclaim, while the plaintiff's claim was determined to be $32,694.

As the defendant was the more successful party, he sought partial indemnity costs.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle, finding neither attracted Rule 49.10 consequences.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) and the principle of fixing a fair and reasonable amount, the court awarded the defendant costs fixed at $34,000 all-inclusive.

The applicant sought a declaration that a trespass notice issued by the respondent municipality violated his freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The applicant had protested at the town hall using a megaphone and siren, exhibiting erratic and intimidating behaviour that caused staff to fear for their safety.

The court found that while the issue was moot, it warranted a decision.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant's aggressive and disruptive conduct crossed the line from peaceful protest to violent expression, which is not protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The moving party sought to set aside a registrar’s default judgment obtained by a bank arising from a corporate lease financing arrangement and a personal guarantee.

The court first considered whether the default judgment was an irregularity under Rule 19.08(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that the claim had been properly served and sufficiently particularized.

Applying the five‑factor test from appellate authority governing the setting aside of default judgments, the court found that although the motion was not brought with unexplained delay, the moving party had no arguable defence on the merits.

The corporate borrower had ceased operations and the guarantor had defaulted under a personal guarantee securing the company’s obligations.

Given the absence of a defence and the prejudice to the lender caused by ongoing storage costs for repossessed equipment, the court declined to set aside the default judgment.

In a slip and fall personal injury action, the defendant brought a refusals motion seeking answers to discovery questions and production of medical and accident-related records.

The court applied the relevance test under Rule 31.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and emphasized that discovery must be confined to matters relevant to the pleadings and not constitute a fishing expedition.

The court limited several requests for historical medical information to five years pre‑accident and upheld certain refusals where the requested information lacked relevance to the pleaded injuries.

However, the court ordered disclosure of documents relating to a prior motor vehicle accident to assess potential overlap of damages and avoid double recovery.

Both parties achieved mixed success and no costs were awarded.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against a corporate director under a personal guarantee limited to $125,000 plus interest securing the debts of the corporation.

The defendant acknowledged the signature on the guarantee but argued the bank failed to discharge its duty to draw attention to onerous provisions, relying on Tilden Rent-A-Car Co. v. Clendenning.

The court held the guarantee was clear, continuing, and applied to all accounts, and found the defendant knowingly executed it as the directing mind of the corporation to obtain financing.

The court rejected the argument that the bank had a positive duty to ensure understanding of the guarantee's terms.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the bank for the outstanding balance plus interest.

The defendant contractor brought a motion for summary judgment alleging the plaintiff subcontractor repudiated a contract for the supply and installation of structural steel on a retail construction project.

The plaintiff asserted the defendant wrongfully terminated the contract and claimed payment under a construction lien.

The court found numerous genuine issues requiring a trial, including whether either party fundamentally breached or repudiated the contract, whether time was of the essence where no delivery date appeared in the subcontract, whether consultant review of shop drawings was required before fabrication drawings were produced, and whether delays were attributable to the contractor or consultants.

The court also held that issues concerning the timeliness and quantum of the construction lien, damages, mitigation, and credibility disputes could not be fairly determined on a summary judgment motion.

In a negligence action arising from a slip and fall accident in a parking lot, the defendants brought a motion concerning refusals and undertakings during examinations for discovery.

The court considered disputes relating to disclosure of financial records relevant to the plaintiffs’ claim for economic loss and questions regarding prior complaints about ice and snow conditions at the premises.

The court held that the requested financial information and access to computer systems were relevant to assessing the economic loss claim and ordered that experts for both parties attend the plaintiff’s business premises to retrieve the necessary data.

The court also ruled that questions about prior complaints regarding icy conditions were relevant to the negligence allegations.

The balance of the motion was adjourned without a date and no costs were ordered for the portion argued.

The defendant insurer brought a motion seeking dismissal of two related actions for failure to comply with a prior court order requiring the plaintiffs to serve an expert report within 60 days and pay $40,000 in costs thrown away after a last-minute trial adjournment.

Despite the peremptory order, the plaintiffs neither retained an expert nor paid the ordered costs.

The court emphasized that parties must comply with court orders to preserve the integrity of the administration of justice.

While dismissal was available under Rule 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court granted a final “last chance” order permitting the plaintiffs 30 days to comply with the earlier order.

Additional costs of $3,500 were awarded to the defendant.

Following an earlier endorsement determining entitlement regarding retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, the court was asked to resolve competing calculations and determine costs.

The dispute concerned retroactive child support for one child while ongoing support had previously been paid for two children, creating difficulty in crediting payments already made.

The court declined to apply the calculation approaches discussed in Field v. Field and instead adopted a modified method that accounted for ongoing support for one child while adjusting retroactive support for the other.

After accounting for payments and section 7 expenses, the court found a small balance owing from the applicant to the respondent but offset that amount with a minimal costs award to the applicant.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a noting in default, a default judgment of over $100,000, and related enforcement steps.

The plaintiffs, who were elderly, had pledged their securities and co-signed a loan for the defendant, who subsequently defaulted.

The court applied the Mountain View Farms test and found the defendant's delay in responding to the claim was deliberate and inexcusable, and his proposed defence lacked an air of reality.

The motion was dismissed, and the stay of garnishment was lifted.

The applicant and respondent, brothers and co-estate trustees, attended mediation to resolve disputes regarding their mother's estate.

They executed minutes of settlement, but the respondent later refused to comply, alleging he signed under duress and coercion from his own counsel and the mediator.

The applicant brought an application to enforce the settlement.

The court found the language of the minutes clear and unambiguous, with no evidence supporting the respondent's late allegations of duress.

The court held the minutes of settlement constituted a binding contract and ordered judgment in accordance with their terms.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to transfer her Small Claims Court action against a home builder to the Superior Court of Justice, amend her claim to increase damages, and add a flooring contractor as a defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had deliberately chosen the Small Claims Court forum and that there were no new facts to justify a transfer.

Furthermore, the court held that the proposed new claims and the claim against the new defendant were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiff had knowledge of the defects more than two years before seeking to amend her claim.

The defendant, Manulife, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b), arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff, who was receiving long-term disability benefits, successfully appealed a denial of CPP disability benefits using a lawyer, and sought to deduct his legal fees from the retroactive CPP amount owed to Manulife as an overpayment.

The plaintiff pleaded breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and bad faith.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff's claims, including differing interpretations of the contract and unjust enrichment, would fail.

A mortgagor sought a declaration requiring the mortgagee to execute a discharge of mortgage upon payment following exercise of a contractual prepayment option in a mortgage extension agreement.

The mortgagee argued that the borrower’s notice of prepayment was late, failed to comply with a 75‑day notice requirement, and was given in bad faith.

The court interpreted the prepayment provisions and found ambiguities regarding the timing of the borrower’s option to prepay.

Applying a reasonable interpretation of the agreement, the court held that the borrower’s notice given on the final day of the six‑month prepayment window was valid.

The mortgagee was therefore required to discharge the mortgage upon payment of the agreed payout amount.