Civil Litigation - Defendant

The plaintiffs, representing a faction of a non-profit religious temple, brought a motion seeking the interim appointment of a monitor to manage the temple's financial affairs due to alleged governance and financial irregularities.

The court found that the incumbent directors served on properly constituted governance boards and acted in good faith.

Although the court identified certain irregularities, such as the failure to provide audited financial statements, it concluded that these did not warrant the intrusive appointment of a monitor.

The motion was dismissed, but the court directed the temple to prepare audited financial statements, update its corporate profile, and provide refresher training on donation counting procedures.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce its contractual rights following a $5 million default on bearer bonds issued for a renewable energy project in Poland.

The plaintiff sought to terminate the Administration Agreement and assume the role of Administrator of the Trust.

The court found that final relief could not be granted on an interlocutory motion due to credibility issues requiring a trial.

However, the court granted a temporary mandatory injunction allowing the plaintiff to assume the Administrator's duties pending trial, finding a strong prima facie case of default, irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience favoring the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing and without notice seeking an order to compel the court to release the audio and video recording of a prior motion hearing to an authorized court transcriptionist.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that under the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction, digital recordings of civil motions are not available.

The court also noted that the prior hearing involved a publication ban protecting minor defendants, and there was no justification to risk further disclosure by releasing the recording.

At a case conference, the plaintiff sought permission to bring a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant objected, arguing that allegations of bad faith, mental distress, and discrimination created genuine issues for trial requiring credibility assessments.

The court permitted the plaintiff to proceed with the motion, noting that judges have powers to determine credibility and address contested facts under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and set a timetable for the motion.

The applicant and respondents were business partners who co-owned a property.

The applicant defaulted on a second mortgage, which was subsequently assigned to a corporation owned by one of the respondents.

The corporation initiated power of sale proceedings.

The applicant sought an urgent injunction to stay the sale, arguing he was owed money from other business ventures and wanted an accounting before paying the mortgage.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant admitted the debt, failed to meet the RJR-MacDonald test for an injunction, and could not use section 12 of the Mortgages Act to achieve Mareva-type relief.

The plaintiffs sought to settle an order approving a Pierringer Agreement with the settling defendants.

A non-party insurer, who was a defendant in a separate action brought by one of the plaintiffs, objected to the wording of the order, arguing it would affect its rights.

The court held that the non-party insurer had no standing to object to the order in this action and signed the draft order as agreed to by the parties.

The applicants sought to set aside an arbitrator's rulings in an ongoing shareholder valuation dispute pursuant to s. 46(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The applicants argued the arbitrator failed to provide adequate reasons for the valuation date, acted unfairly regarding instructions to the valuator, improperly allowed the use of hindsight evidence, and erred in admitting evidence from the respondent's expert.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Superior Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decisions were reasonable, adequately explained, and did not result in procedural unfairness.

The parties agreed on a further order addressing the request for relief pursuant to a previous endorsement.

The court signed the consent order and remained seized of the matter to address any potential non-compliance.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice in a motor vehicle accident claim, arguing prejudice due to the indefinite suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted leave to hear the motion and took judicial notice of the fact that while a judge-alone trial could be scheduled in the near future, the timeline for resuming civil jury trials was unknown.

Balancing the substantive right to a jury trial against the need for a timely and affordable resolution, the court struck the jury notice but allowed the parties the option to return to court if a jury trial becomes available before the scheduled judge-alone trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order for a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendant and the imposition of a discovery plan.

The court declined to impose a discovery plan, directing the parties to agree on terms.

The court also dismissed the motion for a further and better affidavit of documents without prejudice, finding the plaintiff's request was based on speculation and lacked a proper evidentiary foundation prior to examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with LawPRO, the professional liability insurer for the self-represented defendant lawyer.

The defendant objected to the settlement, arguing he was entitled to costs for defending the action.

The court found that the LawPRO insurance policy clearly provided the insurer with the contractual right to settle the claim without the insured's consent.

The plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement was granted, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the action with costs was dismissed.

Following a successful summary judgment motion in a class action regarding administrative segregation in federal penitentiaries, the representative plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $1,235,590.33.

The defendant argued the costs were excessive and duplicative of work done in a concurrent class action involving mentally ill inmates.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that the work was largely duplicative, noting the cases were distinct and the defendant had tenaciously defended both.

The court made a modest reduction of $113,000 for some overlapping settlement discussions and awarded the plaintiff $1,122,590.33 in costs.

A case management conference was held which the plaintiff, Nadire Atas, failed to attend.

The plaintiff had previously been ordered to make Chavali requests to advance her litigation against Sutton Group and related parties but failed to do so.

The court found that the plaintiff had abandoned her litigation by conduct and breached multiple court orders.

Consequently, the court dismissed all claims against the defendants, awarding costs to one self-represented defendant who participated in the case management process.

The applicants brought a motion to compel an expert witness, retained by the respondent SORE, to answer questions refused during cross-examination on his affidavit.

The underlying application sought to quash municipal instruments authorizing Notices of Intention to Designate the applicants' property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The refused questions related to statements the expert made alleging the applicants engaged in 'demolition by neglect'.

The court granted the motion, finding the questions had a semblance of relevance to the issues in the application and the credibility of the expert's evidence, and did not constitute an abuse of process.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for prejudgment interest on a mortgage debt.

The parties had previously settled a construction lien dispute with a zero-interest mortgage due in 2008, which was paid off in installments as condominium units were sold, with the final balance paid after the plaintiff commenced this action in 2018.

The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest on amounts paid before the statement of claim was issued, but was entitled to prejudgment interest on the balance outstanding at the time the claim was issued, from the 2008 due date until payment.

The applicant purchaser sought the return of a $116,154.80 deposit paid for a pre-construction home after the respondent vendor terminated the agreement of purchase and sale.

The vendor alleged the purchaser breached the agreement by listing the property for an assignment sale on MLS and social media without consent.

The court found that while the MLS listing was a technical breach, the purchaser cured the default within the contractual five-day cure period after receiving notice.

The social media postings were found not to constitute a breach.

Consequently, the vendor's termination was invalid, and the purchaser was entitled to the return of all monies paid.

A case management conference was held regarding four defamation actions against the defendant, who failed to attend.

The defendant had previously failed to deliver motion materials for a stay and responding materials for summary judgment motions.

The court noted the defendant in default in one of the actions for failing to file a statement of defence as ordered.

Directions and deadlines were set for the plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and default judgment.

A case management conference was held regarding the respondent's failure to follow court orders in connection with her pending appeal of a contempt judgment.

The respondent did not attend the conference.

The court found that the respondent breached a previous order directing her to inquire about the status of transcripts required for her appeal and to provide the correspondence to the court.

The court ordered the respondent to comply with the previous directions by November 15, 2019, and to explain her non-compliance, warning that failure to do so could result in further contempt proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) to prevent the administrative dismissal of their defamation action for delay.

The defendants opposed the continuation, arguing actual prejudice and seeking dismissal.

The court found the plaintiffs provided a passable explanation for the delay, largely due to solicitor misapprehension regarding file carriage, and that the defendants suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The motion was granted, the action was permitted to continue, and a timetable was set for remaining steps.

The applicant, a self-represented family lawyer, brought a motion to remove Epstein Cole LLP as solicitors of record for his ex-wife in their family law dispute.

He argued that lawyers from the firm would be called as witnesses regarding their alleged interference with his livelihood and application for judicial appointment, and that they harboured animus toward him creating a conflict of interest.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no real likelihood that the lawyers would be called as witnesses, no evidence of untoward animus, and that removing the respondent's counsel of choice would cause her significant prejudice.