William S. Chalmers

The respondent brought a motion to determine whether the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement regarding the assessment of accounts.

The matter came before the court but could not be accommodated for a full-day hearing.

The court adjourned the motion to a later date, noting that all materials had been served and uploaded.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the defendants' motion to enforce a settlement arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs' new counsel, retained shortly before the hearing, required time to finalize motion materials.

Despite the defendants' objection to the late request, the court granted a brief adjournment to prevent prejudice, ordering the plaintiffs to pay $500 in costs to the defendants.

The plaintiff in a fraud recovery action requested a case conference after the self-represented defendant failed to comply with a timetable for a summary judgment motion.

The defendant produced medical evidence that he was undergoing chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer and requested an adjournment of cross-examinations.

The court adjourned the summary judgment motion to a peremptory date and established a new timetable on consent to accommodate the defendant's medical treatment while ensuring the motion proceeds before his scheduled criminal sentencing.

The defendants and respondents brought a motion to declare the self-represented plaintiff a party under disability and to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee as his litigation guardian.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing he was capable of representing himself despite a history of mental health issues and a traumatic brain injury.

Applying the test from Huang v. Braga, the court found the plaintiff lacked the capacity to understand the litigation process, appreciate the consequences of his decisions, or maintain a consistent approach to the proceedings.

The court declared the plaintiff a party under disability and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as his litigation guardian.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a settlement for a minor plaintiff arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident involving the minor's father.

The court reviewed the expert reports on liability and future dependency losses.

The court found the proposed settlement of $89,993.90, plus costs, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minor, taking into account the liability issues.

The court also approved the 30% contingency fee and disbursements.

The self-represented plaintiff in a solicitor's negligence action requested a case conference after failing to comply with a court-ordered timetable.

The plaintiff had not provided an Affidavit of Documents by the deadline, arguing he was waiting for additional documents from the defendant.

The plaintiff also failed to attend his scheduled examination for discovery.

The court found the plaintiff in breach of the timetable, directed the parties to bring their respective motions regarding document production and discovery attendance in Masters' Court, and awarded costs of the case conference to the defendant.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the application to bring a motion for production of further documentation after discovering the respondents made payments to third parties following a previously ordered injunction.

The court scheduled the motion for production of documents and set a timetable for the exchange of materials and cross-examinations.

The court also noted that if third parties consent, an order may be submitted to have the funds paid into court.

The self-represented plaintiff's action was previously dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 with leave to amend.

After the plaintiff filed a Fresh Amended Statement of Claim, the defendants requested another Rule 2.1.01 review.

The court issued a notice that it was considering dismissing the action and required written submissions.

The plaintiff requested a medical accommodation to provide oral submissions instead, citing autism and difficulty writing.

Although the medical evidence was deficient, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 2.1.01(3) to allow the accommodation, finding no prejudice to the defendants.

The plaintiff was permitted to provide a 15-minute oral response.

The plaintiff intends to bring a motion to order the sale of the subject property.

The defendants do not necessarily object to the sale, but there is no agreement on the terms.

The court established a timetable for the motion materials and scheduled a case conference to explore resolving the contested issues before the motion hearing.

The self-represented plaintiff failed to attend a scheduled videoconference motion.

The court adjourned the motions and ordered the plaintiff to pay $500 in costs for the missed appearance.

The court also noted that under Rule 15.01, the minor plaintiff must be represented by a lawyer, and directed the plaintiff to either retain counsel or properly move to discontinue the minor's claim.

Snapclarity Inc. brought an urgent motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain its former CEO and her new company from using an online mental health intake assessment questionnaire and competing against it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Snapclarity failed to establish a strong prima facie case for breach of the non-compete clause or copyright infringement, as the questionnaire was likely owned by the former CEO's consulting firm.

Furthermore, Snapclarity failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as its platform had already been sold and integrated into another company's product, and the balance of convenience favoured the responding parties.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board upholding her attending physician's finding that she was incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic and mood stabilizing medication.

The appellant argued that a breakdown in the therapeutic relationship, rather than mental illness, caused her failure to appreciate the consequences of treatment.

The Superior Court of Justice found no palpable and overriding error in the Board's conclusion regarding anti-psychotic medication, as there was evidence she suffered from bipolar disorder and could not apply treatment information to herself.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding mood stabilizing medication, finding no evidentiary basis for the Board's conclusion on that specific class of medication.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application under s. 109 of the Condominium Act to amend its declaration regarding the maintenance and replacement of exterior windows.

The applicant argued that the declaration was inconsistent because it made unit owners responsible for maintaining windows, while also making the corporation responsible for common elements, which included the exterior windows.

The respondent unit owners opposed the amendment, arguing there was no inconsistency.

The court found an inconsistency existed and that it was unworkable to have individual unit owners replace their own exterior windows.

The court granted the application to amend the declaration and adjourned the respondents' cross-application regarding the procedure for replacing the windows.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for court approval of a $440,000 settlement arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident involving a motorcycle.

The deceased's minor child and other family members sought damages under the Family Law Act.

The court found the 30% contingency fee agreement for the minor plaintiff to be fair and reasonable.

However, the court adjourned the motion for settlement approval because the plaintiffs failed to provide the expert report on loss of dependency and a complete list of disbursements.

At a case conference, the plaintiffs requested copies of all media documents listed in Schedule A of the defendants' Affidavit of Documents.

The defendants argued that the cost of reviewing, redacting, and copying the files would be prohibitive and offered inspection instead.

The court held that the defendants complied with Rule 30.04 by offering inspection and ordered that the plaintiffs' counsel may inspect the documents at the Crown's offices.

The court also renewed an order prohibiting the recording and posting of discovery proceedings on social media.

The applicants brought an application for an interim order appointing them joint guardians of property for $700,000 of a minor's personal injury settlement funds.

The funds were to be used to purchase and renovate a wheelchair-accessible home for the minor.

The Children's Lawyer approved the purchase and recommended specific renovations for the minor's safety.

The court found the purchase and renovations to be in the minor's best interests, granted the interim order, and directed that the property be registered in the minor's name.

At a case conference, the court scheduled a timetable for three upcoming motions: the defendants' motion to enforce a settlement, the plaintiff's counsel's motion to be removed as solicitor of record, and a motion for an order to continue given the plaintiff is an undischarged bankrupt.

The court directed that the order to continue be heard first, followed by the removal motion, and finally the motion to enforce the settlement.

The City of Toronto requested a case conference to schedule a hearing for a duty to defend application against its maintenance contractor and the contractor's insurer, arising from a slip and fall action.

The plaintiff in the main action argued the issue should be determined by a motion in the existing action and expressed concern about trial delay.

The court directed the matter to proceed by way of motion, found there was sufficient time without jeopardizing trial dates, and set a timetable for the motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion to vary an order dated December 22, 2020, which transferred a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court to be tried together with the current action.

The plaintiff sought to vary the order to specifically state that the two actions are to be consolidated, as the original endorsement allowed for consolidation but the draft order did not.

The defendants consented to the relief.

The court granted the motion, finding it necessary to vary the order to conform with the original endorsement.

The plaintiff brought a motion to vary a previous order dated December 22, 2020, which transferred a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court to be tried together with the current action.

The plaintiff sought to vary the order to specifically state that the two actions are to be consolidated, conforming with the original endorsement.

The court granted the motion and varied the order to provide for consolidation.