Associate Judge Barbara McAfee

The plaintiff, Stainless Steel Products (SSP), brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing its action for delay.

The action sought payment of a default judgment from Ohio and a declaration that a property transfer was a fraudulent conveyance.

The court applied a contextual approach, considering factors such as the explanation for delay, inadvertence, and prejudice to the defendants.

The court found the delay satisfactorily explained, the failure to meet the deadline inadvertent, and no significant prejudice to the defendants.

Despite uncertainty regarding the promptness of the motion, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the dismissal order in the interests of justice.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) regarding a residential property transferred by the defendant to his spouse.

The plaintiffs sought to recover on unsecured demand loans and alleged the transfer was a fraudulent conveyance.

The court applied the Grefford test and found a high probability of success on the debt claim, sufficient badges of fraud to raise a triable issue regarding intent to defeat creditors, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the CPL.

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

This was a motion brought by His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario for security for costs against William Adamson Skelly and Adamson Barbecue Limited.

The court applied the two-step analysis under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

It found that Mr. Skelly was ordinarily resident outside Ontario and Adamson Barbecue Limited had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The applicants failed to establish impecuniosity or that the order would be unjust.

The court also noted the low likelihood of success for the applicants' underlying constitutional challenge to the Reopening Ontario Act and related regulations, which were spent or revoked.

The motion for security for costs was granted in the amount of $30,000, and motion costs of $2,000 were awarded to Ontario.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing its action for delay.

The underlying action sought to enforce a default judgment obtained in Ohio and to declare a property transfer void as a fraudulent conveyance.

Applying the contextual approach, the court found that the plaintiff had satisfactorily explained the litigation delay, demonstrated an intention to prosecute the action, and rebutted the presumption of prejudice to the defendants.

Although the court could not determine exactly when the plaintiff learned of the dismissal order, it concluded that setting aside the dismissal was in the interests of justice.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay $10,000 in costs to the defendants in the cause.

The defendant to the counterclaim brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff by counterclaim following an apartment fire.

The moving party relied on unpaid costs from a previous motion and argued the counterclaim was frivolous and vexatious.

The court found the moving party met its initial burden under Rules 56.01(1)(c) and (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The responding party failed to demonstrate impecuniosity or that the counterclaim had a good chance of success.

The court ordered the responding party to post $14,000 in security for costs, payable in tranches.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order for the defendant to produce a further and better affidavit of documents, specifically non-privileged documents related to a corporate reorganization or restructuring, regardless of their temporal origin.

The defendant argued the motion was premature, suggesting the issues could be addressed during examinations for discovery.

The court found that the documents were relevant based on the pleadings and that the defendant had previously agreed to their production.

The motion was granted, and the defendant was ordered to serve a sworn, comprehensive affidavit of documents.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Kaboom Fireworks Inc., brought a motion to compel several defendants (Vulcan Fireworks International Inc., Joseph Wan, Mystical Distributing Company Ltd., and Mystical Distributing International Ltd.) to answer undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery.

The action concerns an alleged breach of an Exclusive Supply Agreement.

The court addressed various categories of refusals and undertakings, largely finding the questions relevant to the pleadings, particularly regarding the relationships between defendant entities, damage calculations, and the sale of Vulcan.

Most outstanding discovery obligations were ordered to be answered, with some resolved by consent or adjourned.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add two proposed defendants in an action for property damage arising from home renovations.

The proposed defendants opposed the motion, arguing the limitation period had expired.

The court found that the plaintiffs provided a reasonable explanation for not discovering the involvement of the proposed defendants earlier, as they could not have known without being advised by the named defendants.

The court granted leave to add the proposed defendants, allowing them to plead a limitation period defence.

The defendant, Law Society of Ontario, brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Rosemary Cremer, to answer questions refused during her examination for discovery and to reattend for further discovery.

The plaintiff had sued the Law Society for damages, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and other torts related to the handling of trust funds.

The court found the questions relevant to the pleadings, particularly concerning the Law Society's justification for its actions as trustee and the plaintiff's role as bookkeeper.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument of undue prejudice based on proportionality.

The motion was granted, ordering the plaintiff to answer the specified questions and reattend discovery, with costs awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff, StorageVault Canada Inc., brought a motion for the issuance of certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against the defendants concerning seven parcels of land.

StorageVault alleged a binding agreement for the purchase of these properties, seeking specific performance.

The defendants opposed, arguing no binding agreement existed and that specific performance was not an appropriate remedy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no triable issue regarding a breach of contract or the availability of specific performance, as the draft agreements were non-binding, the alleged agreement was not capable of performance due to third-party approvals and rights of first refusal, and the properties were not unique, making damages an adequate remedy.

The equities were found to favour the defendants.

The plaintiff and defendant brought cross-motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals given during examinations for discovery in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff alleged she was induced to leave her previous employment of 26 years and that the defendant made material misrepresentations.

The court reviewed the disputed questions, applying the principles of relevance and proportionality.

The court ordered both parties to answer various questions, while finding some of the plaintiff's requests to the defendant overly broad.

Both parties were ordered to re-attend examinations for discovery to answer the compelled questions.

The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action brought a motion to extend the time for service of the statement of claim on two defendant physicians, and to validate service by email.

The two physicians had left the country and were difficult to locate.

The court granted the extension of time nunc pro tunc, finding no prejudice to the defendants and that the plaintiffs had made reasonable efforts to locate them.

The court validated service by email on one physician, but declined to validate service on the other physician residing in Israel, as the plaintiffs failed to establish that email service was permitted under the Hague Convention.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to examine a non-party, who was an expert engaged by the plaintiffs, for discovery.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion on the basis that Rule 31.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure expressly prohibits the examination of an expert engaged by a party in preparation for litigation.

The court agreed, finding that the rule does not apply to experts, and dismissed the motion for leave to examine the expert.

The court also validated service of the motion material on the non-party.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add CML Healthcare Inc. as a defendant on the basis of misnomer in a medical malpractice action involving a delayed diagnosis of a brain tumour.

The plaintiffs originally named Oxford Medical Imaging as the owner of the imaging facility, but later discovered CML owned it at the relevant time.

The court found that the 'litigation finger' was clearly pointing at CML and that there was no non-compensable prejudice.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiffs were awarded costs of $3,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendants, a transit commission and its bus driver, to answer questions refused during examinations for discovery and to re-attend to answer follow-up questions.

The underlying action involved a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle that collided with a transit bus.

The court ordered the defendants to answer questions regarding the driver's 1996 hiring process and driving history, finding them relevant to the pleadings alleging negligent hiring and supervision.

The court also ordered the defendants to re-attend examinations for discovery to answer proper questions arising from the newly provided answers.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim in an action concerning an unpaid promissory note related to a share purchase agreement.

The defendant opposed several amendments on grounds of res judicata, expiry of limitation periods, pleading evidence, frivolousness, and inexplicable delay.

The court denied leave for amendments relating to an option agreement, finding them barred by res judicata as the issue had been finally determined in a prior summary judgment.

However, the court granted leave for the remaining amendments, including claims for breach of the duty of honest contractual performance, finding they arose from the same factual matrix and were not statute-barred.

The court also found the delay in seeking amendments was adequately explained and any presumed prejudice was rebutted.

The plaintiff moved for leave to amend its statement of claim to add a third party as a defendant in an action concerning environmental contamination.

The proposed defendant opposed the motion, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The court found that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the material facts giving rise to a plausible inference of liability against the proposed defendant more than two years before bringing the motion.

Consequently, the limitation period had expired, and the motion to add the party was dismissed.

The defendants moved for leave to amend their statement of defence and add a counterclaim for patent infringement against the plaintiff and several proposed defendants by counterclaim.

The plaintiff and proposed defendants opposed the amendments, arguing they were statute-barred and legally untenable.

The court granted leave to amend the defence and add the counterclaim against most of the proposed defendants, finding the amendments were not clearly statute-barred and met the low evidentiary threshold.

However, the court dismissed the motion to add one proposed defendant, Crystal, as the proposed pleading failed to allege any infringing activity within Canada.

The plaintiff, Jinhang Feng, brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim to add alternative claims for monetary damages and unjust enrichment, in addition to the original claim for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The defendant, Han Yun Liu, opposed the motion, arguing that the proposed amendments constituted a new cause of action and were therefore statute-barred.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that the proposed amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but rather sought alternative relief based on the same facts already pleaded.

The court also awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, finding that the plaintiff had obtained an order more favourable than a prior offer to settle the motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the examination for discovery of David Eckert, the president and CEO, as the corporate representative for the defendants Juice DMS Advertising Limited and Yellow Pages Limited.

The corporate defendants argued that Adrian Fitz-Gerald, an executive advisor with direct involvement in the relevant events, was a more appropriate representative.

The court applied the test for substituting a corporate representative, which places the onus on the corporation to show the plaintiff's chosen representative is inappropriate.

The court found that Eckert lacked sufficient direct knowledge of the matters in dispute and that requiring his attendance would be unfairly onerous given his extensive managerial responsibilities.

Fitz-Gerald, conversely, was found to be personally involved and knowledgeable.

The motion to examine Eckert was dismissed, and Fitz-Gerald was ordered as the appropriate representative.

Costs were awarded to the corporate defendants.