Angela Assuras

The third-party Wasylko Architect Inc. brought a motion to transfer an action from Milton to London, which the plaintiff opposed.

The action concerned property damages in London due to construction work.

The court applied Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) holistically, considering factors such as where events occurred, damages were sustained, the subject matter's location, local community interest, convenience of parties and witnesses, and court facility availability.

The court found London to be a significantly better venue due to the strong factual connection to London and Milton's inability to accommodate a lengthy trial, which would cause significant delays.

The motion was granted, transferring the main action and related third-party actions to London.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to amend a statement of defence and add a counterclaim against a former solicitor, and for an order requiring delivery of the solicitor’s files relating to several matters.

The court reviewed the law governing solicitor’s liens and ownership of client file materials, including distinctions between documents belonging to the client and internal solicitor materials.

Where the solicitor’s conduct and entitlement to fees were disputed and potential prejudice to the client existed, the balance favored delivery of the client’s property.

The court granted leave to amend the pleading and ordered delivery of the relevant client files, subject to an exception for internal solicitor documents such as notes, time dockets, and internal memoranda.

Following a trial in a construction contract dispute where the plaintiff recovered approximately 33% of its claim, the parties made written submissions on costs and pre-judgment interest.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs, while the defendant argued for no costs, asserting the matter should have been brought in Small Claims Court.

The Master confirmed the preliminary ruling of no order as to costs due to divided success, finding that the plaintiff could not have transferred the action to Small Claims Court because of the defendant's $50,000 counterclaim.

The Master also confirmed the pre-judgment interest rate at the presumptive statutory rate of 3.3%.

The defendants sought an injunction restraining execution of a writ of possession arising from a mortgage default judgment.

They argued enforcement should be delayed while they pursued refinancing and separate litigation concerning a third mortgage that allegedly prevented refinancing.

The court held the defendants failed to establish a serious issue to be tried or identify any legal right being interfered with, as the plaintiffs held a valid judgment for possession and there was no existing forbearance agreement.

The alleged harms from eviction were compensable in damages and did not justify injunctive relief.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

Following a prior costs endorsement awarding costs to the defendant, the defendant sought clarification regarding who was responsible for payment.

Evidence established that the plaintiff business operated as a sole proprietorship registered in the name of an individual who testified she was the sole proprietor.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that it was functus officio and clarified its earlier endorsement.

The court held that the sole proprietor, as the alter ego of the business, was responsible for the costs award.

An order was issued directing the proprietor to pay the previously ordered costs.