William S. Chalmers

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment regarding a dispute over a boat allegedly included in a real estate purchase.

The court previously ordered the plaintiffs to serve the motion record on the defendants.

The plaintiffs served the materials on lawyers who had not formally gone on the record for the defendants.

The court held that delivery to lawyers who are not counsel of record is not proper service under Rule 16.01(4)(b) and ordered the plaintiffs to serve the defendants personally or by an alternative to personal service.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order to continue the action, as the primary plaintiff was an undischarged bankrupt.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement that had been accepted by the plaintiffs' former counsel.

The plaintiffs argued the settlement should not be enforced because the plaintiff had a 'change of heart' shortly after acceptance and had not calculated his net recovery.

The court granted the order to continue and enforced the settlement, finding that a valid agreement was reached and a mere change of heart did not justify exercising discretion to set it aside.

The applicant sought to register a default judgment obtained in Alberta against the respondent for unpaid electrical work.

The respondent, who was served in Ontario, did not defend the Alberta action and did not appear at this application.

The court found that the Alberta court had jurisdiction, the respondent carried on business in Alberta, and no circumstances existed under section 3 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act to prevent registration.

The application was granted and the judgment was ordered registered in Ontario.

The applicant brought an application seeking to force the respondent rescue organization to allow her to adopt a dog, claiming a contract had been formed.

The applicant failed to file any materials and abandoned the application on the return date.

The respondent sought its costs.

The court found the applicant's conduct in issuing the application to intimidate the respondent was vexatious and improper.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

Prior to the motion, the defendant accepted the plaintiff's Rule 49 offer to settle, resolving all issues except costs.

The court issued an endorsement setting a timetable for written costs submissions and remained seized of the matter.

The defendants brought a motion to vary a Mareva injunction but abandoned it shortly before the hearing.

The plaintiff sought costs thrown away for the abandoned motion.

The court awarded the plaintiff $7,500 in costs, finding the defendants' conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

The plaintiff's cross-motion for non-party production and examination was directed to be brought before an associate judge.

The applicant requested a case conference to schedule an application for the partition and sale of a jointly owned house and to establish a timetable.

The self-represented respondent did not attend, reportedly due to illness.

The court scheduled the application for March 2022 and set a timetable for the delivery of materials and cross-examinations.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action requested a case conference to schedule dates for discovery and mediation after the defendant delayed proceedings due to internal HR turnover.

The court established a litigation timetable, ordering examinations for discovery to be completed by January 14, 2022, and mediation by February 4, 2022.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff amended their statement of claim against individual directors under s. 248 of the OBCA following a Court of Appeal decision.

The defendants brought a second motion to strike the amended claim, arguing it remained deficient.

At a case conference, the court determined it could not resolve the issue on a limited record and scheduled the defendants' motion to strike for a later date, while encouraging the parties to proceed with discovery and mediation.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action requested a case conference to schedule examinations for discovery and mediation, citing unresponsiveness from the defendant's counsel.

The court found the request premature and inappropriate, as the plaintiff had not yet delivered a sworn Affidavit of Documents or a Notice of Examination for Discovery.

The court declined to schedule the discoveries, directed the parties to utilize the Rules of Civil Procedure, and awarded $250 in costs to the defendant for the unnecessary case conference.

A case conference was held to schedule the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The self-represented plaintiff failed to attend the case conference and had blocked emails from the court.

The case management judge established a timetable for the summary judgment motion and ordered that the defendants serve their materials on the plaintiff by personal service.

The plaintiffs and certain defendants consented to vary a previously granted Mareva injunction.

The consent order unfreezes three bank accounts belonging to the consenting defendants and directs the transfer of funds from one account to the plaintiffs' solicitor's trust account, to be held pending further order or written consent.

The court granted the order as requested.

The plaintiff was rendered a quadriplegic after diving into a shallow above-ground pool at his aunt's farm.

He brought an action against the defendant, a friend of his cousin, who had assisted in moving a wooden platform next to the pool a few weeks prior to the accident.

The court found that the defendant was not involved in the design or construction of the platform, and merely helped move it.

The court held that the plaintiff's injury was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions, and there was insufficient proximity to establish a duty of care.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for approval of a settlement of a disability benefits claim for a person under disability.

The action settled for an all-inclusive amount of $113,553.00.

The court previously approved the settlement but reserved on the issue of plaintiff counsel's fees, directing a breakdown of the all-inclusive amount.

After reviewing the breakdown and the contingency fee agreement, the court found the 33.33% fee on the damages portion to be fair and reasonable, approving total fees and disbursements of $39,629.17.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the jury awarded $40,000 in non-pecuniary damages, the defendant brought a threshold motion to dismiss the claim.

The court analyzed whether the plaintiff's soft tissue injuries, TMJ dysfunction, and psychological issues were caused by the accident and constituted a permanent serious impairment.

The court found that only the whiplash injury was caused by the accident, while the TMJ and psychological issues were pre-existing or unrelated.

The court concluded that the whiplash injury, although permanent, was not a serious impairment as it did not substantially interfere with the plaintiff's usual activities.

The threshold motion was granted and the claim for non-pecuniary damages was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment.

The defendant argued the matter was not ready to proceed due to outstanding undertakings and refusals from cross-examination.

The plaintiff agreed to answer all undertakings and refusals within 24 hours and admitted negligence for the purpose of the motion.

The court ordered the summary judgment motion to proceed as scheduled and modified the timetable for the delivery of factums.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting in default.

The plaintiffs had commenced an action for breach of trust and unjust enrichment, and noted the defendants in default after they failed to deliver a Statement of Defence.

The defendants' daughter, acting as attorney for property for her father who suffered from vascular dementia, explained the delay was due to inadvertence and difficulty locating documents.

The court found the defendants demonstrated an intent to defend, the delay was not significant, and there was no prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The motion was granted, the noting in default was set aside, and the daughter was appointed litigation guardian for her father.

The applicant sought to schedule a motion to add Regal Automotive Group, Inc. as a party to an application enforcing letters of request from a US court.

The court established a timetable for the delivery of materials, cross-examinations, and factums leading up to the motion hearing on November 29, 2021.

The applicant brought a motion for production of documents.

During a case conference, the respondents' counsel advised of a scheduling conflict and requested time to ascertain the position of third parties.

The court found the third parties' involvement unnecessary for the motion, adjourned the motion by one day to accommodate counsel's schedule, and set a timetable for the respondents' factum.

Following a default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action where the plaintiff was awarded damages for salary in lieu of notice, the court addressed the remaining claims for vacation pay and costs.

The plaintiff abandoned the claim for loss of benefits.

The court awarded $464.56 for vacation pay over the statutory notice period and fixed costs at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis.