W. Tausendfreund

The plaintiffs brought a motion to establish a discovery plan after the parties failed to agree on one.

The court noted the lack of meaningful communication between counsel and emphasized that discovery planning should be a collaborative, not adversarial, process.

The court adopted the plaintiffs' draft discovery plan with some amendments, finding it adequately addressed the requirements of Rule 29.1.03(3).

Following an 18‑day personal injury trial and subsequent judgment, the court issued supplementary reasons addressing calculation of net past income loss damages and the costs award.

The court interpreted ss. 267.3, 267.5, and 267.8 of the Insurance Act together with s. 3 of the Negligence Act and held that statutory accident benefits deductions must be applied after apportionment of liability and contributory negligence.

After accounting for accident benefit credits and the plaintiff’s 10% contributory negligence, the municipal defendants’ liability for past income loss was fixed at $50,292.50 plus prejudgment interest.

The court also determined the scope of recoverable costs following a prior appeal that set aside the first trial, permitting recovery of preparation costs for the first trial but excluding the trial costs themselves.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded from the date following a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants Sablo and Shamrock for failing to purchase their common shares in Crown William pursuant to a 'Put-Right' option in an Asset Purchase Agreement.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs did not properly exercise the option and that the action was premature.

The court found that the plaintiffs substantially complied with the notice requirements, that a prior release by one plaintiff did not bar her claim, and that the provision for a section 116 Income Tax Act certificate was not a condition precedent.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for $600,000.

The defendant moved for leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action involved a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident, which the defendant argued was barred by cause of action estoppel because the plaintiff's insurer had previously obtained a consent judgment for property damage in a subrogated action.

The court found conflicting decisions in Ontario and Alberta regarding whether a single wrong can generate more than one cause of action in these circumstances.

Leave to appeal to the Divisional Court was granted to definitively address the issue.

The parties separated after a long-term marriage.

The applicant mother sought child and spousal support, alleging the respondent father under-reported his income from his plumbing business through cash sales and inflated expenses.

The respondent father alleged the applicant was intentionally underemployed after she left her job at Legal Aid Ontario following a malicious complaint he made against her.

The court found the applicant's career change to a paralegal was reasonable and imputed her income accordingly.

The court also found the respondent had significant unreported cash sales and unexplained business expenses, imputing a much higher income to him.

Retroactive and ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support were ordered based on the imputed incomes.