Todd Robinson

The moving parties, a corporate tenant and its principal, sought to consolidate a landlord's action against the principal (as indemnifier) into the tenant's existing action against the landlord, to be asserted by way of counterclaim.

The court dismissed the motion for consolidation, finding that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a counterclaim against only a non-party without also claiming against the plaintiff.

However, the court granted the alternative relief, which the responding party had previously agreed to, ordering that the two actions be tried together or one after another, with shared discovery evidence.

The defendant brought a motion for a confidentiality and sealing order over documents and transcripts previously sealed in related Federal Court patent infringement proceedings.

The plaintiff opposed the motion and sought an adjournment to conduct cross-examinations.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the plaintiff failed to exercise its examination rights with reasonable diligence and the proposed evidence lacked material relevance.

While the court rejected the defendant's argument that the confidentiality issue was res judicata, it applied the Sherman Estate test and granted the sealing order, finding a strong public interest in protecting commercially sensitive information compelled through discovery.

CPI Security Services Inc. (CPI) brought a motion for costs after 2465855 Ontario Ltd. o/a The Westin Prince, Toronto (Westin) accepted CPI's Rule 49 offer to settle but then defaulted on payment and costs.

CPI sought $54,121.12 in costs.

The court fixed CPI's costs of the action on a partial indemnity basis and costs of enforcing the settlement on a substantial indemnity basis, totaling $47,037.30.

The court found Westin's general claims of COVID-19 financial impact insufficient to justify default and noted Westin's lack of communication.

The court also reduced CPI's claimed costs for undertakings and pre-trial preparation, deeming them excessive.

The plaintiff and the defendant mortgagee settled a construction lien action prior to trial for $8,500, leaving only the issue of costs to be determined by the court.

The plaintiff sought full indemnity costs of over $38,000, while the defendant argued for minimal or no costs.

The court declined to award costs to either party, emphasizing the general reluctance to make costs awards where all substantive issues have been settled without judicial determination on the merits, as doing so would require a disproportionate 'shadow trial' solely to assess costs.

The moving party, 1450638 Ontario Inc., brought a refusals motion arising from cross-examinations in an expropriation application.

Metrolinx had expropriated the moving party's property and offered $1.00 in compensation based on alleged environmental contamination, despite an initial appraisal of $2.1 million.

The court ordered Metrolinx to answer questions regarding its communications with the appraiser and to produce draft appraisal reports, finding that the dominant purpose of the appraisal was to satisfy statutory obligations under the Expropriations Act, not litigation.

The court also ordered production of Metrolinx's expropriation policies but dismissed requests for information regarding other unrelated expropriations.

The defendants brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused during the cross-examination of the plaintiff's principal on her affidavit, in advance of a pending security for costs motion.

The court granted leave for the refusals motion, finding it necessary to ensure procedural rights.

The court ordered the plaintiff to answer questions regarding its cessation of operations and the principal's relationship with a former employee, as these matters were raised in the affidavit.

However, the court dismissed the requests to compel answers regarding the plaintiff's assets, liabilities, banking records, the defendants' bill of costs, and human rights claims, finding them irrelevant or improper.

The plaintiff contractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant homeowners for unpaid amounts and extras on a fixed-price home renovation contract.

The homeowners counterclaimed for construction deficiencies and incomplete work.

The court found that the parties had varied the contract by conduct to allow for extras without written change orders, but the contractor only proved entitlement to a few of the claimed extras.

The court dismissed most of the homeowners' deficiency claims due to unreliable expert evidence, but awarded them several credits for incomplete work and unapproved material substitutions.

Ultimately, the court found the homeowners breached the contract by failing to pay the final installment and granted the contractor judgment and a valid lien for the remaining balance of $8,277.97.

The moving party, Onespace Unlimited Inc., brought a motion to strike portions of a reply affidavit sworn by the responding party's principal witness in advance of a summary trial.

The moving party argued the impugned statements contained improper argument, opinion evidence from a lay witness, and legal conclusions.

The court granted the motion in part, striking statements that constituted improper argument or unqualified expert opinion, while retaining statements that were factual observations or inextricably tied to the witness's overall impressions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add a claim for punitive damages and allegations of spoliation of evidence following a pedestrian motor vehicle accident allegedly involving street racing.

The court granted leave to add the punitive damages claim and spoliation allegations concerning the sale of a vehicle and replacement of an engine, finding them to be issues worthy of trial.

However, the court denied leave to add spoliation allegations regarding electronic communications and a failure to remain at the scene, citing a lack of factual foundation.

The plaintiff was partially successful on a motion to compel a further and better affidavit of documents and sought partial indemnity costs of $4,575.87.

The defendants argued for 50% of the claimed costs due to divided success.

The court rejected a strict mathematical reduction for divided success but noted the plaintiff's evidentiary failings on the unsuccessful relief.

Costs were fixed at $3,748.82 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against the defendant's property, claiming specific performance of an alleged agreement of purchase and sale.

The defendant argued there was no binding agreement and raised the Statute of Frauds.

The court found triable issues regarding the real estate agent's authority to bind the defendant, whether the terms were agreed upon, and whether the Statute of Frauds was satisfied through written communications or part performance.

Balancing the equitable factors, the court concluded the potential prejudice to the plaintiff outweighed the presumptive prejudice to the defendant and granted leave to issue the CPL.

The self-represented plaintiff sought leave to amend his statement of claim in a solicitor negligence action to add new allegations, add a new defendant lawyer, and increase his damages claim to $100 million.

The court granted leave to amend the claim against the existing defendants, finding a triable issue on whether the new allegations were statute-barred and that they disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

However, the court denied leave to add the new defendant, as the claims against her were clearly statute-barred and no reasonable cause of action was pleaded.

The plaintiff was permitted to increase the damages claim and continue in the ordinary procedure.

The plaintiff's counsel brought a motion to be removed as lawyers of record and for a charging order for legal fees and disbursements.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, citing prejudice due to an upcoming trial.

The court granted the removal order, finding an irreparable breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship that outweighed the potential prejudice to the plaintiff.

However, the court dismissed the request for a charging order, as counsel failed to provide evidence of the specific retainer terms or demonstrate that their work was instrumental to any recovery.

The plaintiff, suing his former lawyers for professional negligence and breach of contract, brought a motion under Rule 30.06 for a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff sought production of correspondence, legal billing records, internal law firm documents, and settlement communications with insurers.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering the defendants to produce documents relating to legal billing and accounting, as well as communications with insurers regarding the settlement of the tort and accident benefits claims, finding these relevant to the pleadings.

The request for internal documents and other correspondence was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The plaintiffs in four related fraud actions brought motions seeking various procedural relief against the defendant, an undischarged bankrupt, including validation of service, authorization for future email service, and the fixing of a timetable.

The court dispensed with mandatory mediation on consent but declined to issue a blanket order for email service or to fix a timetable, finding such relief premature.

Service of the statements of claim on the defendant was validated effective the date of the motion hearing.

Relief regarding a co-defendant was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of attempted service.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendants to attend mandatory mediation, attend examinations for discovery, and answer undertakings and questions taken under advisement.

The defendants had repeatedly failed to attend scheduled mediations and discoveries.

The court ordered deadlines for mediation, affidavits of documents, and discovery attendance.

The court also ordered a deadline for answering undertakings, finding that although the 60-day period under Rule 31.07(1) had not yet expired, the defendants' conduct warranted an order.

The court declined to compel an answer to a question taken under advisement regarding an insurance adjuster's investigation, finding the request premature and the evidentiary record insufficient to assess relevance or litigation privilege.

Costs thrown away were fixed at $7,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) over a Toronto condominium legally owned by his ex-fiancée, the defendant.

The plaintiff claimed beneficial ownership based on an oral agreement and wire transfers he alleged were for the property's purchase.

The court found the plaintiff established a triable issue for a constructive trust.

However, the court dismissed the motion, concluding that the equities favoured the defendant because the property was an investment, not unique to the plaintiff, and damages would be an adequate remedy.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The self-represented defendant in a construction lien action moved to set aside a notice of discontinuance of his counterclaim, which had been filed by his former counsel over two years prior, and to compel further documentary production from the plaintiff.

The plaintiff opposed the motion and sought leave to bring a motion for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding no inadvertence, mistake, or exceptional circumstances to justify setting aside the discontinuance, and concluding the requested documents were irrelevant to the lien action.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to bring a summary judgment motion, finding it would expedite the resolution of the remaining issues.

The plaintiff moved to strike the self-represented defendant's statement of defence and counterclaim due to his failure to comply with court orders, including failing to serve affidavit evidence-in-chief and refusing to answer discovery questions.

The court struck the defendant's set-off defence and counterclaim, finding he had failed to pursue them meaningfully.

However, the court declined to strike the statement of defence entirely, granting the defendant one final peremptory deadline to serve his trial evidence to allow him to defend the plaintiff's claim on its merits.

The applicant and respondents are sisters who jointly own three properties as tenants in common.

Following a prior order that the properties be sold with no right of first refusal, the parties could not agree on the sale process.

The Master determined the listing agents, the process for setting list prices, the duration of listings, the coordination of pre-listing cleanup and repairs, and established a blind bidding process to ensure fairness in the event one of the co-owners elected to bid on the properties.