Andrea M. Habas

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) obtained by the plaintiff against a property and for an order that the plaintiff post security for costs.

The plaintiff opposed, alleging fraud in the property's sale and seeking an injunction.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to make full disclosure of material facts when obtaining the CPL and did not have a reasonable claim to an interest in the land, leading to the discharge of the CPL.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs, as the plaintiff corporation had insufficient assets and its principal failed to provide adequate financial disclosure to prove impecuniosity.

The appellant appealed a judgment dismissing its application regarding a failed real estate transaction.

The respondent sellers terminated an agreement of purchase and sale due to the appellant's failure to pay a further deposit.

The application judge found the termination was effective and that the respondents did not waive their right to terminate by engaging in subsequent negotiations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding no error in the application of the doctrine of waiver and dismissing the appeal with costs awarded to the respondents.

The defendant George Pappas moved to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff Lucy Romero, arguing irregularity in the judgment and offering an explanation for default.

The court found a clear irregularity as the judgment ordered Pappas to pay a sum not requested in the statement of claim against him.

The court also considered the test for setting aside default judgment, finding Pappas's explanation plausible and an arguable defence, with no prejudice to the plaintiff.

The motion to set aside the default judgment against Pappas was granted, and all enforcement proceedings against him were stayed.

The plaintiffs brought motions to set aside registrar's orders dismissing their construction dispute actions for delay.

The delay was largely unexplained and attributed to the plaintiffs' former counsel, who suffered from health issues and subsequently passed away.

Although the plaintiffs failed to meet three of the four Reid factors, the court found they successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice.

The defendants' conduct, including their willingness to schedule discoveries after the dismissal, indicated no actual prejudice.

The motions were granted and the dismissal orders were set aside.

The plaintiff sought interim and interlocutory injunctions restraining the defendant from continuing an alleged trespass and requiring removal of construction equipment, fencing, refuse bins, and a large stockpile of topsoil from its property.

The dispute arose from a development arrangement where the defendant was permitted under a letter agreement to operate a sales or construction trailer on a commercial block pending reconveyance.

The defendant argued the provision created a lease granting broader rights of occupation, or alternatively that any misuse constituted only a breach of contract.

The court held the agreement granted only a limited licence to place and operate a trailer and did not confer exclusive possession or a leasehold interest.

The defendant’s additional uses constituted deliberate and continuing trespass warranting injunctive relief, and the RJR‑MacDonald test was satisfied in any event.