W.H. Peter Madorin

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that a lease agreement, attached as a schedule to an expired option agreement for quarry operations, was void.

The defendant sought the opposite declaration and substantial damages.

The court found that the option agreement had expired, the lease was never activated due to unfulfilled conditions precedent, and the lease terms themselves were unconscionable, particularly regarding property description, access rights, and allocation of rehabilitation and licensing costs.

The court declared the lease void and awarded the defendant only the expenses incurred after the option agreement's expiry, rejecting claims for expenses incurred during the option period as they were at the defendant's risk.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action, the court addressed costs submissions from the defendants.

The Township of Puslinch sought costs previously fixed at $23,400, which the plaintiff challenged as excessive and duplicative.

The court accepted that a portion of the Township’s costs duplicated a prior motion award and reduced the amount accordingly.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the award should be limited due to the plaintiff’s financial circumstances.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation also sought costs for the action and motion, which the court found reasonable in light of the extensive materials and history of the proceeding.

Following dismissal of claims against several defendants in a civil action, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

Multiple defendants sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the plaintiff had advanced serious and unfounded allegations attacking their integrity.

The court reviewed the governing principles for costs under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, emphasizing reasonableness and the expectations of the parties.

Although the allegations were serious and unsupported, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the self‑represented plaintiff appeared misguided rather than malicious.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the successful defendants in varying amounts, payable within 30 days.

The self‑represented plaintiff commenced a new action against numerous parties, including her former employer, its insurers, opposing counsel, and her own former lawyers, arising from circumstances surrounding her termination and the settlement of an earlier wrongful dismissal action.

Multiple defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim or obtain summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by abuse of process, the prior settlement and release, limitation periods, and failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the plaintiff was attempting to re‑litigate issues resolved in the earlier action and that many claims were legally untenable, including claims against opposing counsel and insurers who owed no duty of care to an adverse party.

Claims alleging breach of privacy, breach of confidence, defamation, Charter violations, and Human Rights Code violations were also found to disclose no reasonable cause of action.

The statement of claim was struck against most defendants without leave to amend and summary judgment was granted dismissing the remaining claims of conspiracy and extortion against them.