A. Wygodny

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay under Rule 24.01.

The action arose from a commercial lease dispute where the plaintiffs alleged the defendant unlawfully changed the locks on a garage.

The plaintiffs commenced the action in 2016 but took no steps between December 2018 and May 2023.

The court found the delay of over four years to be inordinate and inexcusable, noting the self-represented plaintiff's failure to communicate with the defendant.

Given the significant delay and lack of evidence regarding document preservation, the court found actual prejudice and a substantial risk that a fair trial was no longer possible.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant, a representative plaintiff in a U.S. class action regarding unsolicited telemarketing voicemails, sought to enforce Letters of Request to compel the respondent Ontario corporation to attend a deposition.

Following delays in obtaining a protective order in the U.S. action, the applicant moved to add a U.S. defendant as a party to the application and to impose an outside date for the deposition.

The court granted the order, adding the U.S. defendant as a necessary party and setting an outside date of February 4, 2022, for the completion of the deposition.

The applicant sought to schedule a motion to add Regal Automotive Group, Inc. as a party to an application enforcing letters of request from a US court.

The court established a timetable for the delivery of materials, cross-examinations, and factums leading up to the motion hearing on November 29, 2021.

The applicant brought an application under the Evidence Act and Canada Evidence Act to compel the respondent to attend an examination for a proceeding in the United States District Court.

The court ordered the respondent to attend the examination via videoconference, conditional upon the applicant delivering $7,500 in attendance money and a protective order.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the respondent in the fixed amount of $1,000.

The plaintiff obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction and Certificate of Pending Litigation against the defendants, alleging fraudulent and deficient electrical work during a home renovation and claiming the defendants were dissipating assets to avoid judgment.

On the motion to continue the injunction, the court dissolved the orders, finding the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure regarding available insurance and the extent of deficiencies.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or a serious risk of asset dissipation, as the evidence of fraud and intent to hide assets was largely speculative and contradicted by the defendants' evidence.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant mortgagor and guarantor for the balance owing on a mortgage and for dismissal of the defendants' counterclaim.

The defendants failed to file responding materials on time or submit to cross-examination.

The Master granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on the main action for $102,353.27, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The Master also dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty but declined to dismiss the remaining counterclaims for trespass and vandalism, finding the plaintiff's evidence insufficient to refute those specific allegations.