Allison Speigel

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an injunction and were unsuccessful.

The successful defendants sought costs of approximately $121,882 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the defendants' costs were excessive and suggested an award of $40,000 to $50,000, despite their own partial indemnity costs outline totaling over $172,000.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument, finding that the best evidence of reasonable expectations is the opposing side's bill.

The court fixed costs payable to the defendants at $120,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiffs, Home Coffee Solutions Ltd. and 2079162 Ontario Ltd., sought an interlocutory injunction against the defendants, their former business associates, alleging appropriation of work product, copying product descriptions, customer scooping, breach of fiduciary duties, and irreparable harm in a competing "home coffee solutions" e-commerce business.

The court, applying the RJR-MacDonald test, found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favored them.

The court noted the lack of non-competition/non-solicitation agreements and the absence of evidence of actual or imminent misuse of confidential customer data, dismissing the motion for an injunction.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) appealed a motion judge's decision to strike its fraudulent conveyance claims under section 2 of the Fraudulent Conveyance Act.

The motion judge had found the pleadings insufficient to establish standing for subsequent creditors.

The Court of Appeal clarified that subsequent creditors can challenge a transfer if it was made with the general intent to defraud creditors, whether present or future.

The Court found the OSC's pleadings contained sufficient "badges of fraud" to support the claim, including the transfer of property for no consideration, a close relationship between parties, and an intent to avoid future business liabilities.

The appeal was allowed, reinstating the fraudulent conveyance claims regarding both the property transfer and subsequent payments.

This endorsement addresses the costs of motions brought by Broccolini Construction (Toronto) Inc. ("Broccolini") to reduce a lien registered by Elegant Façade Inc. ("Elegant") and for security for costs, as well as an earlier refusals motion.

Broccolini was successful in significantly reducing the lien amount and obtaining an order for security for costs.

The court rejected Elegant's argument to reserve costs to trial, finding that the motions resolved sub-issues definitively.

Considering the complexity, importance, and Elegant's unreasonable litigation conduct, including an exaggerated lien claim and failure to accept a reasonable offer, the court awarded Broccolini substantial indemnity costs totaling $119,453.85.

The defendant general contractor brought a motion to reduce the amount of security posted to vacate a construction lien registered by the plaintiff subcontractor, and for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim for extra work was clearly inflated and lacked sufficient evidentiary support, and that the plaintiff failed to comply with contractual notice provisions.

The court reduced the lien amount to $797,636.23 and ordered the plaintiff to post $120,000 as security for costs, finding good reason to believe the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to pay a costs award.

The defendant brought a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) granted ex parte to the plaintiffs over a condominium redevelopment property.

The defendant argued the plaintiffs failed to make full and fair disclosure by omitting a standard form agreement of purchase and sale and relevant emails.

The court found the plaintiffs complied with their disclosure obligations, as the inclusion of the standard agreement was a triable issue rather than a deliberate omission.

The court also found the property was unique to the plaintiffs under the Dhunna factors.

The motion to discharge the CPL was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) to strike the plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief regarding express, resulting, and constructive trusts, as well as fraudulent conveyances.

The plaintiffs, who are judgment creditors, alleged that the defendants transferred properties to their spouses to defeat creditors.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient facts to support their claims and that it was not plain and obvious the claims would fail.

The court also granted the plaintiffs' countermotion for a discovery plan.

The Lawyers (Parnes Rothman LLP et al.) brought a motion to consolidate two actions: a main action by mortgagees to collect mortgage debts and a lawyer action by mortgagors for contribution and indemnity from their lawyers.

The court granted the motion, finding that the actions shared common questions of law and fact, and consolidation would promote efficiency, avoid inconsistent findings, and facilitate common discoveries.

The court dismissed the mortgagees' argument that the motion was an abuse of process, noting that the Lawyers had not circumvented any procedure.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to strike a negligence claim without leave to amend.

The respondent, a lawyer acting as a notary, had notarized an affidavit containing allegations against the appellant.

The affidavit was subsequently published in a newspaper article.

The appellant's original defamation claim was statute-barred, so he amended to allege negligence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that no duty of care existed between the appellant and respondent.

The court held that a lawyer does not owe a duty to third parties to verify the accuracy of affidavit contents, and there was insufficient proximity between the parties to ground a duty of care.

The plaintiffs, including Romijay Enterprises Ltd., sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants, led by 11 Yorkville Partners Inc., from holding a unit owner meeting to approve the sale of their condominium property.

The defendants, owning over 80% of the units, intended to sell the property to a non-arm's-length purchaser for redevelopment, relying on section 124(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The plaintiffs invoked the oppression remedy under section 135 of the Act, arguing that the forced sale of their unit, which held significant personal and emotional value to its controlling mind, Robert Berman, constituted oppressive conduct.

The court granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the plaintiffs' reasonable expectation that their unit would not be sold to a non-arm's-length purchaser without their consent, that they would suffer irreparable harm due to the unit's unique value, and that the balance of convenience favored preserving the status quo.

The defendants in a construction dispute moved for leave to amend their Response to the plaintiff's Request to Admit.

The court granted leave under s. 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act, finding the step necessary to resolve ambiguities and expedite the trial.

Applying the three-part test for withdrawing admissions, the court allowed the amendments, noting they raised triable issues regarding the validity and authenticity of the alleged contracts, there was a reasonable explanation for the initial deficient responses by former counsel, and the plaintiff suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The applicant, Xuan Luu, sought to set aside a $700,400 default judgment and corresponding writ of execution obtained by the judgment debtor's son, Mazen Abuomar, against his father, Mohamed Abuomar, alleging fraud.

The judgment was obtained shortly after the Sheriff initiated sale proceedings for Mohamed's property to satisfy Luu's prior judgments.

The court found numerous "badges of fraud," including suspicious timing, familial relationship, and lack of documentation, which the respondents failed to explain.

The court declared Mazen's judgment and writ void against Luu's interests.

Luu's request for a judicial sale of the jointly-owned property was dismissed, as the court found no statutory or equitable basis to compel the sale of a non-debtor joint owner's interest.

The moving defendants sought dismissal of the plaintiff’s action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that it was frivolous and vexatious.

The claims arose from a mortgage enforcement and eviction following default on mortgages registered against a property owned by the plaintiff’s spouse.

Prior court and Landlord and Tenant Board determinations had already found that the plaintiff had neither ownership nor tenancy rights in the property and that the eviction was lawful.

The court held that the amended statement of claim contained unintelligible allegations, lacked standing, and attempted to re‑litigate issues already determined.

Applying Rule 2.1.01, the court concluded that the action constituted an abuse of process and summarily dismissed the claims against the moving defendants.

The plaintiff creditor brought a motion for summary judgment declaring that the defendant Clarke was the beneficial owner of two properties, with legal title held by the defendant Bailey in trust.

Clarke claimed his common law spouse, Reid, was the beneficial owner.

The court found numerous badges of fraud and sham transactions, concluding that beneficial title always remained with Clarke.

As Clarke had assigned himself into bankruptcy while holding beneficial title, the court declared the properties remained vested in his discharged trustee in bankruptcy and ordered the trustee's reappointment to complete the administration of the estate.

The moving defendants sought to strike the amended statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs alleged numerous causes of action arising from disciplinary proceedings and a trusteeship order involving the professional practice of a lawyer and sought extensive damages against the regulator, its employees, and media defendants.

The court held the pleading was rambling, vexatious, and failed to disclose reasonable causes of action.

Claims including defamation, malicious prosecution, and derivative Family Law Act damages were inadequately pleaded or legally barred.

The court further found the claims constituted an impermissible collateral attack on prior disciplinary and court decisions and were barred by statutory immunity under the Law Society Act.

A commercial tenant sought declarations that a landlord’s distraint against its goods for alleged rent arrears was unlawful and that the landlord had forfeited the lease.

The landlord had changed the locks to the premises while simultaneously posting a distress notice demanding payment of a substantially inflated sum that included amounts not payable under the lease.

The court held that a landlord must choose between the mutually exclusive remedies of forfeiture and distress and that the landlord’s conduct effectively excluded the tenant from the premises.

By locking the tenant out and conditioning re-entry on payment of improper charges, the landlord forfeited the lease and the subsequent distress was unlawful.

Declarations were granted and a trial of damages was directed.