William S. Chalmers

Three actions were brought arising out of a water loss incident.

The defendant sought a timetable for the conduct of the actions due to the complexity of scheduling examinations for discovery with multiple parties.

The court directed the defendant to provide information regarding the ownership and maintenance of the water heater to determine if Enercare or Reliance Home Comfort are proper parties.

The case conference was adjourned to establish the timetable and determine the status of the actions against the water heater companies.

The court also indicated a willingness to order the three actions to be tried together upon consent of the parties.

At a case conference arising from a motor vehicle accident, counsel for a plaintiff in a related action advised she was unable to contact her clients and was considering a motion to be removed from the record.

The court adjourned the case conference to allow counsel to determine her position and to investigate whether her client's death was caused by the accident.

The applicant sought a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 for $12,955 in Canadian currency seized during a roadside police investigation.

The police found suspected cocaine, a digital scale with residue, multiple cell phones, and a large amount of cash in a rental vehicle occupied by two individuals.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the currency was the proceeds or an instrument of unlawful activity.

As the interested parties provided no evidence that preservation would clearly not be in the interests of justice, the court granted the preservation order.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement and a Consent Judgment to be invoked upon default.

The defendant defaulted on the payment schedule, and the plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 49.09 for judgment of $350,000.

The defendant and his counsel failed to attend the case conference, requesting an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The court scheduled the motion for an oral hearing peremptorily on the defendant and set a timetable for materials.

At a case conference, the court established a timetable for a motion to determine the capacity of the self-represented plaintiff.

The defendants intend to bring a motion to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian for the plaintiff before any further steps are taken in the actions.

The applicant pension fund brought an application for an interpleader order regarding a $62,841.54 pre-retirement death benefit.

The deceased plan member's designated beneficiaries (his mother and sister) and his alleged common-law spouse asserted competing claims to the fund.

The alleged spouse opposed the order extinguishing the applicant's liability, arguing she had a claim for emotional distress.

The court granted the interpleader order, finding no valid cause of action against the applicant, and ordered the alleged spouse to pay $15,000 in partial indemnity costs to the applicant.

The plaintiff's motion was previously adjourned on consent due to a personal emergency of the defendant's counsel.

A chambers appointment was held to schedule a new date.

On consent, the motion was scheduled for August 20, 2021, and a timetable for cross-examinations, undertakings, and factums was established.

At a case conference in a solicitor's negligence action, the court established a timetable for the conduct of the action, including dates for documentary discovery, examinations for discovery, mandatory mediation, and expert reports.

The parties also agreed to stay a related application to enforce a fee arrangement pending an assessment of the defendant's fees.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitral decision finding it was the priority insurer for accident benefits claimed by an Alberta resident whose mother was killed in an Ontario motor vehicle accident.

The claimant had applied to the respondent insurer, who denied the claim and paid no benefits, but initiated a priority dispute against the appellant.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant, an extraterritorial insurer, was not bound by the Ontario priority rules despite being a signatory to the Power of Attorney and Undertaking (PAU).

Furthermore, the court ruled that the respondent insurer could not pursue a priority dispute because it had not first paid benefits to the claimant, violating the 'pay first and dispute later' principle.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for approval of a $40,000 all-inclusive settlement arising from an incident where a refrigerator door fell on the infant plaintiff in the defendant's grocery store.

The court approved the settlement amount and the 30% contingency fee, noting the fee must be calculated on the settlement amount excluding costs.

However, the court adjourned the request to pay the funds into an RESP rather than to the Accountant of the Superior Court, requiring further evidence that the RESP is more advantageous.

A case conference was held regarding a tentative settlement that had stalled due to issues with the plaintiffs' previous counsel's fees and disbursements.

The litigation guardian for the plaintiffs under disability failed to attend the conference for the second time and was ordered to provide a doctor's note.

The defendants took the position that a binding settlement was reached, while the plaintiffs argued they were under duress.

The court directed the plaintiffs to confirm their position on the settlement within two weeks, noting that any motion for court approval would require the plaintiffs under disability to retain new counsel pursuant to Rule 15.01(1).

The defendant, Native Child and Family Services of Toronto, requested that the action be summarily dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants unlawfully apprehended a child and failed to return him.

The case management judge found that the claim was not clearly frivolous or vexatious on its face and declined to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1, without prejudice to the defendants bringing motions under other rules.

A further case conference was ordered to address the plaintiffs' litigation capacity.

The appellants appealed an arbitrator's decision to quash summonses issued to non-party lawyers in a commercial arbitration regarding referral fees.

The arbitrator had quashed the summonses on the basis that the requested client names and accounting information were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the non-party lawyers were not bound by the arbitration agreement's expanded appeal rights, and under the Arbitration Act, 1991, there is no right of appeal for questions of mixed fact and law.

The court further held that the standard of review was reasonableness and the arbitrator's decision to quash the summonses and award costs was reasonable.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal and breach of contract following his termination without cause.

The defendant failed to defend the action, which proceeded as an undefended trial.

The court awarded the plaintiff his unpaid bonuses, accrued vacation pay, and 20 months of severance as stipulated in his employment contract, finding no duty to mitigate for fixed contractual amounts.

The court also awarded $20,000 in punitive damages due to the employer's reprehensible failure to pay even the statutory minimums upon termination.

The plaintiffs and defendant in a motor vehicle accident action reached a settlement at mediation, subject to the plaintiff in a companion action agreeing to limit her claim to the remaining policy limits.

Counsel for the plaintiff in the companion action failed to attend the case conference despite a previous endorsement directing her to do so.

The court adjourned the case conference and ordered counsel for the plaintiff in the companion action to attend the next date to address the status of her action, document production, the cause of her client's death, and whether she will limit her damages to the remaining policy limits.

The parties in a complex construction dispute involving multiple actions and counterclaims submitted a consent Discovery Plan to the case management judge.

The court ordered that the Discovery Plan, which sets out key dates for the exchange of affidavits of documents, virtual examinations for discovery, and detailed e-discovery protocols including search terms and metadata load file requirements, applies to the proceeding.

The applicant brought an application for a declaration that a charge registered on a property was void as a fraudulent conveyance.

At a case conference, the respondents argued the matter should proceed as a trial of an issue due to factual disputes and credibility issues.

The court directed that the matter proceed by way of application, noting that the presiding judge could still order a trial of an issue under Rule 38.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants brought separate motions to strike the plaintiffs' claim under Rule 21.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of one defendant's motion because they had a pending motion for leave to amend the statement of claim.

The court granted the adjournment, finding no prejudice to the defendants and noting that proceeding with a motion to strike while a motion to amend is pending would be inefficient.

Both motions to strike were adjourned to be heard together, with costs thrown away awarded to one defendant.

The moving party sought a declaration that her employer's insurer owed her a duty to defend multiple civil actions arising from unauthorized access to patient health records used to obtain narcotics.

The court held the motion was suitable for summary judgment and applied the pleadings rule and the three-step duty to defend analysis to determine the true nature of the claims.

It found the non-derivative claims were for the intentional tort of intrusion upon seclusion, that the alleged injury was the loss of control over private information, and that such injury was not caused by an occurrence under the occurrence-based policy.

In any event, the court held the intentional act and criminal act exclusions would bar coverage.

The motion was dismissed.

A case conference was held regarding the defendant's motion to strike paragraphs in the plaintiff's claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11.

The parties were unable to resolve the motion, but agreed to limit it to Rule 25.11 so it could proceed before a Master.

The parties were directed to schedule a hearing date with the Masters' office.