William S. Chalmers

The applicant lawyer brought an application seeking a declaration of coverage under a professional liability policy after being sued by a former client.

At a case conference, the court granted a sealing order on consent, noting that the insurer's position in the coverage dispute could affect the applicant's defence in the underlying action.

The court also established a timetable for the application and scheduled a one-day hearing.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a fraud recovery case following the defendants' guilty pleas in a related criminal matter.

The defendant failed to attend a scheduled case conference to establish a timetable for the motion.

The court proceeded in the defendant's absence and established a timetable for the delivery of materials, cross-examinations, and factums leading up to the summary judgment motion hearing.

The plaintiff brought an action for constructive dismissal alleging a hostile work environment.

The defendants applied to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) for a determination of whether the action is barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, and brought a motion to stay the civil action pending the WSIAT decision.

Following a case conference, the court scheduled the motion for a stay and established a timetable for the exchange of materials.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for court approval of a $10,000,000 settlement arising from a medical malpractice claim involving severe birth injuries to the minor plaintiff.

The minor plaintiff sustained permanent neurological injuries, including cerebral palsy, requiring 24-hour care for the rest of her life.

The court approved the settlement allocation for the minor, her parents, and OHIP, finding it fair and reasonable given the significant litigation risks regarding standard of care and causation.

The court also authorized the parents to use a portion of their settlement funds to immediately purchase a wheelchair-accessible home, while reserving its decision on the proposed $3,136,500 counsel fee pending input from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The plaintiff forensic accounting firm brought an action for unpaid professional fees against a former client and her lawyer.

The client alleged there was an oral agreement capping the fees at $40,000, and brought a crossclaim against her lawyer for professional negligence, alleging he failed to secure her ex-husband's assets during her family law dispute.

The court found no credible evidence of an agreement to limit the accounting fees and ordered the client and lawyer to pay the outstanding balance.

The court dismissed the crossclaim, finding the lawyer did not breach the standard of care, the alleged negligence did not cause the loss, and the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendant, Great Lakes Nickel Limited, brought a motion in writing for an order directing that money paid into court be returned.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court determined that the issues would benefit from oral submissions and adjourned the matter for an oral hearing pursuant to Rule 37.12.1(4)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The parties reached a settlement following a trial management conference and submitted a consent to a dismissal order.

The court initially rejected the consent due to issues with legal representation for the corporate defendants.

After receiving confirmation that the self-represented individual defendant had filed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person and that counsel of record had executed the consent for the corporate defendants, the court granted the consent order dismissing the action and directing the payout of $1,000,000 held as security.

The applicant siblings sought an order for the partition and sale of a property they co-owned equally with the respondent sibling.

The respondent, who resided at the property rent-free, did not respond to the application.

Finding no evidence of malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the applicants, the court granted the order for sale.

The court also ordered the respondent to deliver vacant possession to allow the property to be cleaned, staged, and sold for maximum value, and awarded costs to the applicants.

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing for default judgment in the amount of $105,000 after the defendant failed to respond to the amended statement of claim.

The plaintiff had purchased a minority shareholding interest in the defendant's business, which was permanently closed shortly after.

The court exercised its discretion under Rule 19.02(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to order the plaintiff to serve the defendant with the motion record and endorsement, adjourning the matter for 30 days to allow the defendant to respond.

The plaintiffs brought a motion pursuant to Rule 7.08 for approval of a settlement of the claims brought by the minor plaintiffs arising from a motor vehicle accident where the stepfather/father was struck by a vehicle while crossing a pedestrian crosswalk.

The proposed settlement was for $150,000, with $2,500 allocated to each minor plaintiff.

The court considered the liability risks, including the likelihood of contributory negligence and the application of the Family Law Act deductible.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minor plaintiffs, and approved the settlement.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury due to the suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

After being advised by the court that a non-jury trial could proceed in March 2022 while a jury trial would be scheduled for June 2022, the plaintiff withdrew the motion.

No costs were ordered.

A case conference was held to determine if there were any issues with the timetable for an upcoming motion to determine the legal capacity of William MacLeod.

The court found that the steps set out in the timetable had taken place, no issues arose during cross-examinations requiring immediate attention, and the parties were on track for the scheduled hearing.

The court also directed that issues raised by Mr. MacLeod in a letter could be addressed at the motion itself.

At a trial management conference, the self-represented defendant requested an adjournment of the peremptory trial date, citing medical issues and lack of counsel.

The court declined to entertain the request without a formal motion on notice.

The court also ordered counsel of record for the corporate defendants, who failed to attend the conference without explanation, to appear at the commencement of trial to show cause why costs should not be awarded against him personally.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a defamation counterclaim brought by one of the defendants.

The court convened a case conference to determine whether partial summary judgment was appropriate, applying the factors from Malik v. Attia.

The court declined to schedule the summary judgment motion, finding that it would not make the proceeding appreciably cheaper and that there was a risk of inconsistent findings because the main action and the counterclaim shared factual issues regarding allegations of fraud.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant tenant for damages caused by flooding, relying on the lease's insurance and indemnity clauses.

The defendant requested a case conference to argue that summary judgment was inappropriate because a third-party action against its subtenant would continue, risking inconsistent findings.

The court allowed the summary judgment motion to proceed, finding it proportionate and unlikely to result in inconsistent findings, as the third party had not defended the main action and would be bound by its outcome.

The court adjourned the motion to allow the third party to retain counsel and the defendant to conduct cross-examinations.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against a defendant driver who failed to defend an action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The co-defendant insurer opposed the motion, arguing that liability for the accident remained a live issue in the ongoing claim against it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the evidentiary record insufficient to determine liability and noting that granting partial default judgment could lead to inconsistent findings of fact at trial.

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

At a case conference, the parties agreed not to proceed with the summary judgment motion at this time and consented to a timetable for mediation, documentary discovery, and oral discovery.

The court established the timetable and remained seized of any scheduling issues, noting it was too early to determine if a streamlined trial procedure would be appropriate.

The applicant sought to schedule a date for the hearing of an Application claiming $120,000 in damages for repair costs to trucks and loss of income.

The applicant argued the matter could proceed under Rule 14.05(3)(h) as there were unlikely to be material facts in dispute.

The court declined to schedule the Application, holding that a proceeding to recover damages arising out of negligence or breach of contract should be brought by Action, not Application.

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

The parties agreed to a settlement of $150,000, inclusive of damages, costs, and disbursements.

The court reviewed the medical evidence, finding the minor had reached maximal medical recovery with minor permanent sensory deficits.

The court also approved the plaintiffs' solicitor's contingency fee of $40,000, finding it fair and reasonable given the time expended, the complexity of the damages issues, and the excellent result achieved.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to amend their Amended Notice of Application to add Sentry Insurance Company, Teva Canada Limited, and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA as respondents.

The proposed respondents consented to the relief sought.

The court granted the motion on consent, with the application against the newly added parties to be adjourned to a later date.