Arkadi Bouchelev

The applicants sought to transfer an appeal from the Mining and Lands Tribunal to the Superior Court of Justice under section 107 of the Mining Act.

The underlying appeal concerned the refusal of a permit by the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority under the Conservation Authorities Act for a pool house.

The court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the original proceeding was not "under the Mining Act." Even if jurisdiction existed, the court would not have exercised its discretion to transfer, as the matter fell within the specialized expertise of the Tribunal and did not raise general legal principles outside its scope.

The court also rejected arguments regarding tribunal delay and the deteriorating condition of the structure, noting the applicants' own conduct in building without a permit.

The defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim, Ryan Wood, brought a motion to transfer the action from Toronto to Barrie, pursuant to Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff/defendants by counterclaim opposed the transfer.

The court applied a holistic approach to the factors outlined in Rule 13.1.02(2)(b), noting that the action originated from events in Simcoe County, all parties resided in Barrie, and there was no factual or evidentiary connection to Toronto.

The court found that the moving party demonstrated that transferring the action to Barrie was desirable in the interest of justice.

The motion was granted, and the action was ordered transferred.

The Plaintiff brought three motions: for costs related to previous motions against TD Bank, to compel outstanding document productions from the Defendants, and for leave to amend her Statement of Claim.

The court awarded the Plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $3,000 against the Defendants for their conduct in unnecessarily prolonging the TD Bank motions, but reserved the issue of full indemnity costs based on alleged fraud to the trial judge.

The court also issued specific orders compelling the Defendants to produce various financial documents within 60 days.

The Plaintiff was granted leave to amend her Statement of Claim to increase claims for aggravated and punitive damages, with other proposed amendments adjourned.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an assessment of legal fees and disbursements following a settlement of all other claims in an action for malicious prosecution and false arrest against the Toronto Police Services Board and numerous officers.

The settlement agreement provided that the plaintiff's costs were to be assessed by a judge.

The court determined that costs should be fixed on a partial indemnity scale rather than assessed on a solicitor-and-client basis.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court significantly reduced the plaintiff's claimed costs of $266,509.90, finding the time spent on discoveries and other steps disproportionate to the $175,000 settlement value.

Costs were fixed at $74,392.67.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the respondents following their successful motion to set aside an ex parte order.

The ex parte order was set aside due to the applicants' failure to make full and frank disclosure.

The court rejected the applicants' argument to reserve costs to a future motion judge, emphasizing the importance of full disclosure in ex parte applications and finding that the issue of disclosure was distinct from the merits of the underlying dispute.

Following an uncontested family trial, the court addressed equalization of net family property, spousal support, and costs after granting a divorce.

The respondent had repeatedly failed to comply with disclosure orders and his Answer was struck, leaving the applicant’s evidence largely uncontested.

The court drew adverse inferences regarding undisclosed assets and attributed significant cash to the respondent when calculating net family property.

A vesting order transferred the respondent’s interest in the matrimonial home to the applicant to satisfy an equalization payment.

The applicant was also awarded retroactive and ongoing spousal support and substantial costs.

The plaintiff brought an action arising from an informal arrangement whereby she provided funds to the defendant to invest in Toronto real estate on her behalf.

The defendant used the plaintiff’s funds to acquire a condominium in his own name and retained funds intended for upgrades, while also collecting rental income from the property.

The defendant conceded that the condominium was purchased with the plaintiff’s funds and acknowledged holding upgrade funds belonging to her.

The court declared that the defendant held the property interest in trust for the plaintiff, ordered repayment of $11,782, required an accounting of rental and occupancy payments, and directed the defendant to assign his purchaser’s interest to the plaintiff.

Although the defendant’s conduct displayed several indicia of fraud, the court found no proven intention to deceive or deprive and therefore declined to award punitive damages.

The plaintiff corporation sought continuation of a preservation order restricting the defendant from dealing with equity in a replacement property pending trial.

The underlying action alleged unpaid renovation work and a loan for property taxes, claiming the parties agreed payment would come from the proceeds of sale of a prior property.

The defendant denied any contract and disputed the extent of renovations.

The court found significant credibility conflicts requiring resolution at trial but concluded there was a serious issue to be tried and a sufficient connection between the proceeds of the original property and the equity in the replacement property to justify relief under Rule 45.02.

The preservation order was continued with procedural directions to move the action expeditiously to trial.