Andrew Pinto

The applicant, a construction company, brought an urgent application for the return of tools and equipment from the respondent's property, a declaration that the construction contract was void, and damages.

The court dismissed the request for the return of property, finding the applicant failed to establish substantial grounds for ownership and that the balance of convenience favored the respondent.

The court also determined the matter was not suitable to proceed as an application due to material facts in dispute and the existence of a parallel action commenced by the respondent.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice to the applicant to file a defence and counterclaim in the ongoing action.

The defendants Jing Liu and Yu De Xing (the "Xing defendants") brought a motion to enforce a Third Party Offer to Settle dated July 4, 2017, which they accepted on February 15, 2020.

The plaintiffs and Third Party argued that a subsequent global offer to settle from January 2020 impliedly withdrew the earlier offer, or that the court should exercise discretion due to inadvertent error.

The court found the two offers to be fundamentally distinct and that the later offer did not impliedly withdraw the earlier one.

The motion to enforce the July 2017 Offer to Settle was granted, and partial indemnity costs were awarded to the moving parties.

The defendants, having successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's action, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the factors under section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court determined that partial indemnity costs should generally be calculated at 60% of full indemnity costs, not 66%.

After reviewing the parties' costs outlines and considering the complexity, importance of issues, and conduct of the plaintiff, the court adjusted the defendants' claimed hours and fixed costs at $80,107.16, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The plaintiffs, a hair salon tenant and its principals, brought a motion for injunctive relief and access to commercial leased premises after the landlord locked them out due to alleged rent arrears and property damage concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The landlord had purported to exercise a right of distress for an inflated amount including by-law infraction costs.

The court found the landlord's actions constituted a forfeiture of the lease and an illegal distraint.

The court granted the plaintiffs' requested access to retrieve chattels and ordered the landlord to pay substantial indemnity costs due to its "reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct" in holding the chattels hostage during a vulnerable time.

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action.

The plaintiff, a self-represented individual, sued after the defendant complained to a community organization about his alleged harassing behavior.

The court found that the defendant's expression related to a matter of public interest (character and integrity of mentors in a volunteer organization).

While the plaintiff's claim had substantial merit, the defendant had valid defenses (justification, fair comment, qualified privilege).

Furthermore, the harm suffered by the plaintiff was not sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the defendant's expression.

The action was dismissed, and the defendant was awarded full indemnity costs and damages for bad faith.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action seeking payment on two promissory notes and a declaration of entitlement to a matrimonial home based on a collateral mortgage.

The court found that the first promissory note, to which the mortgage was collateral, was paid off and materially altered without assent, rendering it and the mortgage unenforceable.

The second promissory note was found to be statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action and discharging the collateral mortgage.

The plaintiff, a party under disability, commenced an action against the bank defendants for alleged mismanagement of funds.

Three interrelated motions were heard: the plaintiff's motion for default judgment, the defendants' motion to set aside the noting of default, and the defendants' motion to strike out the claim on grounds of *res judicata* or abuse of process.

The court found that the noting of default was improperly obtained and should be set aside, dismissing the plaintiff's motion for default judgment.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the claim, finding that both branches of *res judicata* (cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel) applied, and that allowing the action to proceed would constitute an abuse of process, given the prior dismissal of a similar application and appeal as statute-barred.

The claim was struck without leave to amend, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

This is an appeal from a Master's decision regarding an undertakings and refusals motion.

The appellant, Classic Furs Company Ltd., sought to compel The Northwest Company LP and its employee Jason White to answer certain refused questions and provide further documentation related to shipping, customs, and supplier invoices for coyote furs, as well as accounting treatment of invoices.

The Master had largely ruled in favour of the respondents.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Master's discretionary decisions on sufficiency of production and findings of irrelevance for the requested documents and questions, applying the palpable and overriding error standard for discretionary matters and correctness for relevance.