Case Evaluation

  • Fill out this form to schedule your initial consult with our lawyers.
  • * By using this site and/or submitting this form, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Innovative Ontario Legal Authority

As the Ontario Courts modernize, I am attempting to collect forward thinking Endorsements, Rulings, Orders, Decisions and Judgments which are supportive of modernization and/or performance improvement generally. If you become aware of such authority, please forward a copy to me for consideration for inclusion.

Materials deemed filed despite Court’s refusal to accept

A document (a Statement of Claim) was deemed filed when filing was attempted, but improperly refused by the court. Patkaciunas v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2021 ONSC 5945 (CanLII).

Orders & Endorsements Effective when Signed

Orders/Endorsements are effective from the date signed (and need not be stamped). Hordo v. Zweig, 2022 ONSC 593 (CanLII).

Examinations for Discovery – All Questions To Be Answered

“Absent exceptional circumstances, any question asked during examinations that is objected to on a ground other than privilege shall be answered under Rule 34.12(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The evidence from such an answer shall not be admissible at trial without leave. Failure to comply with this order or abuse of it will be considered in determining costs.”

Kealey Tackberry Log Homes Ltd. v. Bonnici, Toronto Court File No.: CV-20-636170, Master Robinson, August 24, 2020.

Discoveries to be Virtual Absent Agreement

Absent agreement of the parties, “[e]xaminations for discovery shall be held remotely.”

Worsoff v. MTCC 1168, 2021 ONSC 6493 (CanLII) at paras. 34-36, Justice Myers.

Providing Summary of Witness Testimony in Advance

“Defendant shall provide a list of the witnesses the defence proposes to call together with a summary of the expected testimony or evidence of each witness.”

Roxana M. Raducanu v. Primmum Insurance Company et al., Newmarket Court File No. CV-18-134327-00, Justice McKelvey, July 8, 2020.

Dispensing with the need for Transcripts at Hearing

“If need be, counsel may rely on Zoom playback as transcripts.”

Ontario International College et al. V. Consumers Road Investments, Toronto Court File No. CV-20-644211, Justice Myers, July 22, 2020.

Recording of Trial

“Pursuant to s. 136(2)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, Mr. Lesage is permitted to record the proceedings in order to supplement his note taking during trial.”

Savo et al. v. Penfold et al., Newmarket Court File No.: CV-13-113743-00, Justice Casullo, March 26, 2021.

Exhibits at Trial – Joint Document Briefs at Trial

“The parties will work toward submitting a joint document brief. The parties are encouraged to follow the guidance of the Court of Appeal in both Girao v. Cunningham, 2020 ONCA 260 (CanLII), at paras. 33-35, and Bruno v. Dacosta, 2020 ONCA 602 (CanLII), at paras. 53-66.”

Savo et al. v. Penfold et al., Newmarket Court File No.: CV-13-113743-00, Justice Casullo, March 26, 2021.

Case Conferences

Instead of waiting months to hear counter-productive formal motions, summary decisions at case conferences are being made with increased frequency in appropriate cases to help move cases forward toward resolution more efficiently, more affordably, and more justly.
Innocon Inc. v. Daro Flooring Constructions Inc. 2021 ONSC 7558 (CanLII) at para. 8.

Infant Settlement Agreement – Excess Funds not deposited into Court or an RESP

“THIS COURT ORDERS that from those funds for the benefit of CA, the balance shall be deposited into a joint bank account, to be set up and held by mother and CA jointly.”

CA v. HW, (names partially redacted for privacy reasons) Hamilton Court File No.: CV-XX-XXXXXX-0000 (contact me if required), Justice Parayeski, April 28, 2020.

Eliminate Redundant Defences to Counterclaims

“THIS COURT ORDERS that where a party is defendant to a crossclaim, provided such party has filed a defence, such party shall be deemed to deny all crossclaims against them on the following basis:

    1. The crossclaim defendant denies all allegations set forth in the crossclaim against it.
    2. The defendant pleads and relies upon its statement of defence, and/or the contents of the most recent Statement of Claim as against the party asserting the crossclaim.
    3. The crossclaim defendant is deemed to plead and rely on the Negligence Act, and the Limitations Act, 2002, in defence to all crossclaims.
    4. The crossclaim defendant submits that the crossclaim against it shall be dismissed with costs payable on a substantial indemnity basis.
    5. Nothing herein shall prohibit a crossclaim defendant from filing and serving a more detailed defence to crossclaim, nor from amending its defence to crossclaim at a subsequent point to plead more detail. This provision is intended only to avoid a multiplicity of largely redundant pleadings.

Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2299 v. Distillery SE Development Corp. et al., Toronto Court File No.:CV-15-523947-0000, Associate Justice Josefo, August 30, 2022.

Share this page: