Todd Robinson

The plaintiff, Praxy Cladding Corp., brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim in a lien action to plead reliance on an accepted quote as a contract document.

The defendants, Stone Lamina Inc. and GCAT Group Inc., opposed, arguing the plaintiff was attempting to withdraw an admission that a purchase order was the sole contract.

The court found no unambiguous admission in the original pleading and clarified that discovery admissions are not subject to Rule 51.05.

Applying the three-part test for withdrawing an admission, the court found a triable issue, a reasonable explanation (lawyer inadvertence), and no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The motion for leave to amend was granted.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $17,000 after successfully striking the defendant's statement of defence.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, considered the purposes of costs and the framework for self-represented litigants.

The court found the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of lost remunerative activity, and that the defendant had already been sanctioned by having his defence struck.

Consequently, the court awarded only the plaintiff's disbursements of $748.00, denying the claim for time-based costs.

This action arose from a townhouse development project where Sundance Development Corporation (construction manager) and Islington Chauncey Residences Corp. (developer) disputed their services agreement.

Sundance claimed unpaid fees and for materials, asserting Islington repudiated the contract.

Islington counterclaimed for excess construction management costs and damages due to Sundance's alleged negligent management.

The court found that Islington did not repudiate the contract and that Sundance breached the agreement by unilaterally withdrawing services and demanding payments not yet due.

Sundance's claims and lien were dismissed.

Islington's counterclaim was partially granted for replacement construction management costs, steel column rectification, and sprinkler head changes due to Sundance's negligence, resulting in a net judgment in Islington's favour.

Two actions arose from a construction project where Kelson subcontracted Amar for sheet metal work, and Amar sub-subcontracted Sjostrom for labour.

Sjostrom walked off the job due to non-payment by Amar.

Kelson then directly engaged Sjostrom to complete the work and issued a change order reducing Amar's contract price.

Sjostrom claimed unpaid amounts from Kelson, while Amar claimed the unpaid balance of its subcontract.

The court found that Kelson and Sjostrom formed a direct oral contract, but Sjostrom failed to prove its claimed hours and its action was dismissed.

The court also found that the change order removed the remaining labour from Amar's scope of work, and Kelson breached its subcontract with Amar by non-payment.

Amar was awarded $209,737.88.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the defendant employer, Bayer Inc., moved to compel the plaintiff, Lara Maalouf, to answer refused discovery questions regarding her vaccination status and views on vaccination, and for a further affidavit of documents.

The court granted the motion in part, compelling answers to the questions as they were relevant to the pleadings, particularly the employer's defence of just cause and failure to mitigate.

However, the request for a further affidavit of documents was dismissed, as the employer failed to prove the existence of unproduced relevant documents.

The plaintiff, Lesley Ann Smith, brought a motion seeking an order validating service of the statement of claim on the defendant, Renee Elfassy, and extending the time to serve the claim.

The underlying action arose from an alleged trip and fall in 2016.

The statement of claim was issued in 2018, but Ms. Elfassy was not served until 2022.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to make reasonable efforts to locate and serve Ms. Elfassy within the prescribed period or in the subsequent years.

The court also found that the delay was not adequately explained and that the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumed and actual prejudice to Ms. Elfassy caused by the delay.

The defendant, The Cadillac Fairview Corporation, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 24.01(1)(c) or, alternatively, to impose a timetable.

The plaintiff, Joanne Tsivaras, opposed the dismissal.

The court found that while there was a lengthy delay, it was not sufficiently inordinate or prejudicial to warrant dismissal, allowing the action to proceed.

The court granted the alternative request for a timetable and awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants.

A separate hearing was ordered to determine whether the plaintiff or her lawyers (Pace Law Firm) should bear the costs liability, due to concerns about the law firm's conduct regarding file management and communication.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim, strike its defence to counterclaim, discharge its lien, and amend the trial timetable due to the plaintiff's persistent non-compliance with court orders, including failure to serve trial affidavits.

The plaintiff, a sole proprietorship, was unrepresented and did not appear at the motion hearing.

The court validated courier service of the motion record on the unrepresented plaintiff.

The motion was granted in part: the plaintiff's action was dismissed, and its lien discharged, with security to be returned.

However, the order striking the plaintiff's defence to counterclaim was denied, and the dismissal and discharge orders were stayed until a future hearing to afford the unrepresented plaintiff a final opportunity to address non-compliance.

Trial dates were reduced, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff, Casaplata Inc., brought an urgent motion seeking leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a property owned by the individual defendants (the "Owners") to secure a prospective future judgment.

The property in question was not security for the plaintiff's original mortgage.

The defendant Sub-Prime Mortgage Corporation opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that a CPL is not intended to secure a damages claim or to preserve assets for future enforcement.

The court also found that the plaintiff misrepresented the urgency of the motion and failed to provide sufficient evidentiary support for its claims, leading to a substantial indemnity costs award against the plaintiff.

Leblon Carpentry Inc. brought a motion seeking an extension of a court-ordered deadline to provide answers to undertakings from its examination for discovery, including a *nunc pro tunc* extension and further time for an outstanding undertaking.

The motion was opposed by Qi Tang, who sought to preclude Leblon from relying on the late answers.

The court dismissed Leblon's motion, finding that Leblon failed to provide a sufficient and convincing explanation for its non-compliance and did not demonstrate honest and meaningful efforts to provide responsive answers.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to court orders, particularly in summary lien proceedings, and ruled that Leblon could not rely on the information subject to the undertakings requested by Qi Tang that was not provided by the original deadline.

Costs were awarded to Qi Tang.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a construction lien and dismiss the action, alleging the plaintiff, Kamlu Engineering Inc., repeatedly breached court orders regarding document production, discovery scheduling, appointment of counsel, attendance at hearings, and payment of costs.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that while Kamlu had demonstrated non-compliance and delay, its conduct did not warrant the severe sanctions of discharging the lien and dismissing the action.

The court noted that some breaches had been cured and that any non-compliance could be addressed through costs.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside service of the statement of claim outside Ontario and to stay proceedings on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing British Columbia was the more appropriate forum for a dispute involving alleged misuse of confidential employment information.

The plaintiff opposed, asserting Ontario was the proper forum.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that British Columbia was not clearly a more appropriate forum than Ontario.

The decision also addressed the inadmissibility of a late-filed supplementary affidavit and denied a request for split submissions between counsel and client.

This solicitor negligence action involved a motion brought by the self-represented plaintiff seeking orders for production of a former lawyer's file and retainer agreements, further particulars of the statement of defence, and a stay of proceedings pending review of a prior order removing the defendants as counsel.

The court dismissed all requested relief, finding the production requests premature and the particulars unnecessary as they sought evidence rather than material facts.

The request for a stay was also denied as premature.

The court imposed a modified discovery plan proposed by the defendants.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action by the minor plaintiffs due to the litigation guardian's failure to appoint new counsel, as required by a previous court order and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The litigation guardian, who was self-represented for his personal claim, had not retained a lawyer for the minor plaintiffs despite over a year passing since the previous lawyers were removed from the record.

The court found insufficient evidence of diligent efforts to find counsel and emphasized the mandatory requirement for a litigation guardian to be represented by a lawyer.

The motion was granted, dismissing the minor plaintiffs' claims.

This defamation action involved Dianne Ballam and multiple defendants, including Linda Atamanchuk, concerning a newspaper article.

Following settlement with other defendants, the plaintiff, Dianne Ballam, moved to amend her statement of claim to reduce damages to $35,000 and remove injunctive relief, and to transfer the action to the Small Claims Court.

The defendant, Linda Atamanchuk, opposed the transfer, arguing procedural prejudice.

The court granted the amendment and the transfer, finding the Small Claims Court capable of resolving the dispute and that no genuine procedural prejudice would result.

The court also awarded Ms. Atamanchuk partial indemnity costs thrown away.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's defence due to the defendant's ongoing breaches of court orders and obligations under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The breaches included failure to comply with court-ordered timetables, serve an affidavit of documents, attend an examination for discovery, and pay costs orders.

The defendant, self-represented, asserted a lack of understanding but failed to demonstrate any reasonable efforts to investigate or comply with his obligations.

The court found the defendant's non-compliance deliberate and unexcused, and granted the motion, striking the defence with prejudice.

The plaintiff, Consolidated Fastfrate Inc., moved for summary judgment against the defendants (2516295 Ontario Ltd., Great Lakes Milling Company Ltd., and Great Lakes Milling Company Inc.) for outstanding principal and interest under a credit agreement.

The court found all three defendants liable, with Great Lakes Milling Company Ltd./2516295 Ontario Ltd. bound by the credit agreement's 26.82% annual interest rate, and Great Lakes Milling Company Inc. bound by the 18% annual interest rate stated on invoices.

The defendants' arguments regarding force majeure, frustration, and impossibility due to the COVID-19 pandemic were rejected.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, including interest on unpaid amounts and accrued interest, and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The self-represented defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 24.01(1)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the plaintiff failed to set the action down for trial within six months of the close of pleadings.

The court found that the delay was neither intentional nor contumelious, but rather resulted from disputes over a discovery plan and competing motions.

Concluding that the delay was not inordinate or inexcusable and that there was no substantial risk to a fair trial, the court dismissed the motion and awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion for directions on late production and admissibility of a project bid estimate that it had previously refused to produce during discovery.

The plaintiff argued the document was irrelevant until its expert relied on it for a loss of productivity claim.

The court found the document was always relevant and required leave under Rule 53.08 to be admitted.

The court granted leave, finding no non-compensable prejudice or undue delay, but ordered the plaintiff to produce the native file and submit to further examination at its own expense on a full indemnity basis.

Following the release of reasons dismissing the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence, the self-represented defendant communicated with the court to claim the motion had been withdrawn during submissions.

The court issued supplementary reasons clarifying that the motion was not withdrawn, but rather the relief sought was amended.

The court also noted that the defendant's indirect communication with the court breached Rule 1.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.