William S. Chalmers

At a case management conference, the self-represented plaintiff and the defendants sought to schedule several motions.

The plaintiff intended to bring motions to set aside the appointment of the case management judge, amend the statement of claim, and compel production of documents.

The defendants intended to bring a motion to dispense with mediation.

The court established a timetable for the motions to be heard and noted preliminary issues regarding the representation of a minor plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment.

Following a case conference, the parties agreed to the terms of a consent judgment.

The court granted the relief sought and issued an order in accordance with the draft judgment.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for court approval of a proposed $150,000 settlement for a minor who sustained a crush injury to her hand in an elevator.

The court adjourned the motion, finding the current record insufficient to determine if the settlement was in the minor's best interests.

The court required further medical evidence regarding the minor's surgery and prognosis, as well as the contingency fee agreement and time dockets to assess the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed $40,000 legal fee.

The court issued a corrigendum to correct an error in an endorsement dated April 16, 2021.

The correction clarified that the applicant's pension benefits were reduced to the joint and survivor benefit level commencing May 1, 2010, and that the clawback of overpayments commenced February 1, 2011.

The court also amended the endorsement to direct that payments to the applicant on a life-only basis be made retroactive to May 1, 2002, with pre-judgment interest.

Following a finding that the defendants breached a Solar Development Lease Agreement, a case conference was held to schedule a reference to determine damages and prejudgment interest.

The court established a timetable on consent for the delivery of records, cross-examinations, and factums, with a further case conference scheduled to ensure the parties remain on track.

The plaintiffs brought a motion on consent to place the action in abeyance pursuant to s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The action involves complex issues of Aboriginal title relating to water and floodplains in Southern Ontario, which are also being addressed in a separate proceeding.

The court agreed that it would be disproportionate and inefficient to advance this action concurrently and ordered the matter placed in abeyance.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action requested a case conference to schedule a summary judgment motion and establish a timetable.

The defendant opposed, arguing the case was not appropriate for summary judgment due to issues regarding the start date, mitigation, and claims for general and punitive damages.

The court agreed with the defendant, finding that a summary trial was more appropriate than a summary judgment motion, and established a timetable leading to a two-day summary trial.

The applicants brought a motion to compel the representative of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company to answer questions refused during cross-examination and to reattend.

Prior to the hearing, the parties settled the motion on consent.

The court granted the relief sought in accordance with the draft order.

The plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral agreement to purchase a commercial property through a newly incorporated company.

The plaintiff contributed $400,000 and the defendant was to contribute $2.3 million, but the defendant later refused to provide more than $800,000, causing the transaction to fail.

The vendors sued the plaintiff and the company, resulting in a settlement and forfeited deposit.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract to recover his losses.

The court found a valid oral agreement existed, rejected the defendant's Statute of Frauds and corporate law defences, and awarded the plaintiff $184,230.42 in damages.

The defendant moved to strike a new action for unjust enrichment as an abuse of process, arguing the plaintiff should have sought leave to add her to an existing related action.

The plaintiff cross-moved to consolidate the actions.

The defendant also moved to stay the action or strike the plaintiff's affidavit because the plaintiff spoke to his counsel during a break in a virtual cross-examination.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the new action was not an abuse of process as it involved a new party.

The court allowed the consolidation motion.

While the court found a breach of cross-examination rules occurred during the virtual break, it held that staying the action or striking the affidavit was a disproportionate remedy given the innocuous nature of the discussion.

The applicant brought an application for payment of outstanding invoices totaling approximately $53,000.

At a case conference, the court determined that the matter could proceed by way of application pursuant to Rule 14.05(3)(h) as there were unlikely to be material facts in dispute.

The application was scheduled for a three-hour hearing, and the case conference was adjourned to allow the respondent time to retain legal counsel.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to issue a writ of seizure and sale, a notice of garnishment, and a tracing order to enforce a 2013 judgment.

The court established a timetable on consent and scheduled the motion to be heard on August 31, 2021.

The plaintiffs brought an unopposed motion to appoint Brooke Charlotte Nichol as the estate representative for the deceased plaintiff, Richard Nichol, and to amend the statement of claim accordingly.

The deceased plaintiff died during the course of the medical malpractice action, and his estate was not probated.

The court found the order necessary to allow the estate to proceed with the action and granted the requested relief.

The plaintiff law firm brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant for unpaid legal fees.

The defendant had retained the plaintiff in connection with her late husband's estate and family business but failed to pay the rendered invoices.

After being noted in default and failing to respond to the motion, the court granted default judgment in the amount of $290,551.86 plus costs.

The applicant sought a declaration that his former spouse did not meet the eligibility requirements for a joint and survivor pension under the Pension Benefits Act.

The applicant argued they were living separate and apart when his disability pension commenced, or alternatively, that she had signed a spousal waiver.

The court found that the parties were living separate and apart at the relevant time, as they lived in different countries with no significant interaction.

Although the court found the applicant had forged the respondent's signature on the spousal waiver, he was still entitled to a life-only pension based on the separation.

Costs were denied to the successful applicant due to his deceptive conduct regarding the waiver.

The plaintiff general contractor brought a motion to refer its action against a performance bond surety to a Master, to be tried alongside a related construction lien action commenced by a subcontractor.

The defendant surety consented to the relief.

The court granted the motion, finding that a joint trial before the Master was the most efficient procedure and would prevent inconsistent findings.

The applicant brought an application without notice to register a default judgment obtained in Michigan against the respondents.

The respondents had signed a promissory note governed by Michigan law, failed to repay it, and did not defend the Michigan action despite being served.

The court found that the requirements under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act were met and granted the order to register the judgment in Ontario.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for approval of a minor's settlement.

The court previously approved the settlement amount and legal fees but adjourned the matter to determine whether the net funds should be paid into an RESP instead of to the Accountant of the Superior Court.

Based on the litigation guardian's financial expertise and the benefits of government grants, the court found that payment into an RESP was more advantageous and in the minor's best interests.

The settlement and payment structure were approved.

The plaintiff developer brought an action for breach of contract arising from an aborted sale of a subdivision house, and the defendant purchaser alleged undue influence.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment.

Following cross-examinations, both parties agreed the factual issues were discrete and appropriate for summary judgment.

The court agreed, scheduled the summary judgment motion for a half-day hearing, and established a timetable for the remaining steps, including a refusals motion.

The defendant Bolderson proposed to bring a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and the co-defendant's crossclaim arising from a motor vehicle accident.

A previous judge scheduled the motion but expressed concern about its appropriateness given the delivery of jury notices and the potential that it would not resolve all issues.

Following a case conference, the court directed the matter to proceed to the scheduled summary judgment motion.