Viktoria Anteby

Following the successful summary dismissal of a counterclaim brought against a real estate brokerage, the court determined costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The brokerage had sought substantial indemnity costs of $21,089.91, arguing the counterclaim alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and negligence with potential reputational harm.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct, but awarded partial indemnity costs of $13,357.41 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, payable within 30 days.

A motion by a real estate brokerage to dismiss and strike a counterclaim brought against it by a self-represented defendant.

The defendant alleged that the brokerage was vicariously liable for the conduct of one of its agents in a private real estate transaction.

The court found that the agent had cancelled the listing agreements and thereafter conducted the sale and lease transactions in her personal capacity, without the brokerage's involvement or knowledge.

The court granted the motion, dismissing the counterclaim on the basis that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, that the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and that the counterclaim was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court dismissed Aqib Rahman's action against Dewart Gleason LLP and Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim alleged civil fraud by the defendants in defending lawyers in prior litigation, but the court found that the doctrine of absolute privilege, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Rahman v. Elia Associates, provided a complete defence.

The court held that the action was devoid of merit, sought to relitigate settled issues, and should not proceed.

The third party defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the defendant/third party plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(c) due to an unpaid costs award.

The responding party, who was self-represented and appeared via Zoom from Iran, failed to file responding materials or provide sufficient evidence of impecuniosity or a high chance of success at trial.

The court found it in the interests of justice to order security for costs and directed the responding party to post $60,000 on a partial indemnity basis, as well as pay the outstanding costs award.

The self-represented plaintiff sued his neighbor (the landlord) and two real estate brokerages for $3,000,000, alleging that the tenants placed in the neighboring property engaged in criminal activities that caused him fear and caused a former co-plaintiff to suffer a stroke.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim.

The court granted the motion, finding that real estate agents owe no duty of care to a neighboring resident who is a stranger to the real estate transaction.

The court also found that the claim against the landlord failed to plead any material facts establishing negligence or knowledge of the alleged criminal activities, and that the plaintiff failed to plead any damages suffered by himself.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied several treatment plans and attendant care benefits, and requested the applicant attend insurer's examinations under Section 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled examinations.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was precluded from proceeding to arbitration under Section 55(2) of the Schedule.

The Arbitrator found that the insurer provided sufficient medical reasons for requesting the examinations and that the applicant failed to reasonably justify his non-attendance.

Consequently, the applicant was precluded from arbitrating the disputed benefits.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefit and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal more than two years after the denial.

The applicant argued the denial was not clear and unequivocal, meaning the limitation period had not begun.

The Tribunal found the insurer's Explanation of Benefits provided a clear and unequivocal denial of the claim.

Consequently, the applicant's claim was statute-barred.

The insurer's request for costs was denied as the applicant's conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing discussion and the subsequent peremptory arbitration hearing.

The insurer moved to dismiss the application.

The arbitrator found the applicant's claims had become vexatious due to his non-attendance and failure to provide submissions.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $850 in expenses to the insurer for costs thrown away.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled arbitration hearing regarding her claim for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer moved to dismiss the application.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's failure to respond to notices or attend the hearing rendered her claims vexatious.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $850 in expenses to the insurer for costs thrown away.