William S. Chalmers

Rogers brought an Application seeking the return of $876,095.04 allegedly paid in error to the respondents.

At a case conference, the respondents objected to the presiding judge scheduling or hearing the Application, arguing the judge was acting as a case management judge under Rule 77.06.

The court held that Rule 77 did not apply but voluntarily declined to hear the Application.

The court proceeded to set a timetable for the Application and scheduled the respondents' motion to consolidate the Application with an existing action between the parties.

The applicant sought court approval for the settlement of a minor's tort claim arising from a dog bite, as well as approval of the contingency fee agreement.

The court found the $155,000 settlement to be fair and reasonable given the minor's good recovery.

The court also approved the reduced 25% contingency fee, noting the good result achieved and the promotion of access to justice.

The court directed the parties to provide reasons why the settlement funds should not be paid into court pursuant to Rule 7.09.

A case conference was held regarding three applications concerning the duty to defend opioid class actions.

One application was settled on consent.

The court addressed procedural matters, including the sharing of insurers' coverage positions and the scheduling of the remaining applications for June 2021.

The defendants, a lawyer and his firm, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's professional negligence action as statute-barred.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants negligently failed to perfect a construction lien, resulting in the loss of its secured position.

The plaintiff argued it did not discover the claim until the conclusion of the debtor's bankruptcy proceedings when it became clear no funds would be recovered.

The court held that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known it had suffered a loss and that a civil action was legally appropriate by October 2014, when it was advised the lien had expired.

The bankruptcy proceeding was not an alternative dispute resolution process that delayed the limitation period.

The action, commenced in 2019, was statute-barred and dismissed.

A case conference was held to address trial management issues for an upcoming virtual trial concerning a development project and a claim of misfeasance of public office.

The court issued directions regarding the narrowing of issues, the exchange of witness lists and will-say statements, the filing of a joint document brief, and the scheduling of witnesses.

The applicant brought an application to recover money allegedly removed from her bank account by her brother.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement, and the applicant brought a motion for a final order confirming the consent to settle.

After the applicant filed the required additional materials and the consent executed by counsel of record, the court granted the order in accordance with the draft order.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce a settlement or dismiss the action, arguing the plaintiff's counsel had accepted a without-costs dismissal offer.

The plaintiff's counsel raised issues regarding the terms of the offer and whether acceptance occurred.

The court noted there appeared to be no issue regarding ostensible authority, encouraged the plaintiff's counsel to seek instructions, and set a timetable for the motion if the matter did not settle.

At a case conference regarding the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on an expired limitation period, counsel for LawPro requested a one-month adjournment to review the file and determine its position.

The defendants did not object.

The court granted the adjournment and scheduled a further case conference to establish a timetable for the motion.

The plaintiff and defendants were 50 percent owners of a corporation whose sole asset was a property intended for gas station development.

Following a breakdown in their relationship, the defendants sold the property to a third party without the plaintiff's consent.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an oppression remedy to remove the defendants from management, while the defendants sought to wind up the corporation.

The court dismissed both requests, finding no oppressive conduct and concluding that a winding up was not just and equitable at this stage.

The court granted a motion to rescind the sale of the property and ordered the return of the purchase funds held in court, less outstanding costs owed to the plaintiff.

The applicant sought court approval under Rule 7.08 for a $155,000 settlement of a minor's tort claim arising from a dog bite.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient to determine if the settlement was in the minor's best interests, noting a lack of current photographs of the facial scarring.

The court also found insufficient evidence to approve the proposed 25% contingency fee, as the retainer agreement and time dockets were not provided.

The application was adjourned for 20 days to allow the applicant to file additional materials.

The plaintiff sought an order striking the jury notice on the basis that jury trials were not currently available in Toronto.

The court found it would be premature to hear the motion before an expected court announcement regarding the availability of jury trials in January 2021.

The motion was scheduled to be heard on January 8, 2021, and a timetable for materials was established.

The plaintiff brought a motion to transfer a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court and consolidate it with the current action.

The defendant failed to attend the scheduled case conference despite receiving notice.

The court found that both actions involved the same subject matter and directed the plaintiff to prepare a draft order transferring and consolidating the actions, awarding costs of the day to the plaintiff.

At a case conference, the court established a new peremptory timetable for an application regarding a commercial lease dispute.

The respondent had failed to comply with the previous timetable and recently retained new counsel.

The court ordered the respondent to deliver its record, including proof of payment for additional rent claimed, and set dates for cross-examinations and factums.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages for breach of contract arising from a failed real estate transaction.

A summary judgment motion was originally scheduled for April 2020 but was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The parties attended a case conference to set a new date and establish a timetable.

The court scheduled the motion for a full day on April 27, 2021, and set out a consent timetable for documentary discovery, expert reports, mediation, cross-examinations, and factums.

During a case conference in a joint venture dispute, the parties agreed that the plaintiff's counsel was in a conflict of interest and should be removed as solicitor of record for a jointly-owned corporation in a related solicitor's negligence action.

The court granted the order removing counsel and directed that the corporation would have 30 days to retain new counsel or seek leave to be represented by a non-lawyer.

The court deferred the defendants' request for immediate production of the complete solicitor's file until new counsel is retained.

Following a decision by the Court of Appeal remitting the issue of a declaration for indemnity from 2402169 Ontario Inc. to the motion judge, a telephone case conference was held.

The parties agreed to have the motion determined in writing.

The court ordered the motion to proceed in writing during the week of February 1, 2021, and established a timetable for the delivery of factums and motion materials.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time for written submissions following the conclusion of evidence at trial.

The plaintiff's new counsel required trial transcripts, which would not be available until mid-December, as the trial had been split over a year due to a change of counsel.

The court granted the extension, finding it would be unfair to require the new counsel to prepare submissions without the transcripts.

Kik Interactive Inc. sought indemnification from AIG Insurance Company of Canada for legal expenses incurred defending an action by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) related to its cryptocurrency, Kin.

Kik argued the SEC claim was a securities claim covered by its AIG PrivateEdge Plus policy.

AIG denied coverage, citing exclusion 4(j) for claims arising from any public offering of securities.

Kik contended the exclusion was ambiguous or, alternatively, that an exception to the exclusion applied.

The court found the exclusion unambiguous, applying to all public offerings of securities, not just initial public offerings of shares.

It also determined that Kik failed to satisfy the conditions for the exception to the exclusion, as it did not provide proper notice or underwriting information, nor did AIG offer additional coverage.

Consequently, Kik's application for indemnification was dismissed.

The defendant, a former student, reported to her guidance counsellor and police that she had been sexually assaulted by the plaintiff, her former piano teacher.

The police investigated and charged the plaintiff, but the charges were later stayed.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for malicious prosecution.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act (s. 137.1) and, in the alternative, for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the expression related to a matter of public interest, the malicious prosecution claim lacked substantial merit because the police (not the defendant) initiated the proceedings, and the public interest in protecting the reporting of sexual assaults outweighed the harm to the plaintiff.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's amended application as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, arguing the applicant lacked legal capacity after assigning its rights in a real estate purchase agreement to a third party.

The court found that based on the related agreements, the applicant retained the right to sue the respondents regarding a dispute over the property's net area and purchase price.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the applicant was awarded costs.