B. Blay

The defendants moved to vacate a construction lien registered against their property by the plaintiff contractor, arguing the lien had expired.

The court found that the contract was either terminated by the defendants or abandoned by the plaintiff on August 18, 2022, when the defendants changed the locks and the plaintiff retrieved its tools with police assistance.

Because the plaintiff failed to perfect the lien by commencing an action and registering a certificate of action within 150 days of that date, the lien expired.

The motion was granted, the certificate of action was vacated, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the production of a reporting letter sent by the defendants' former solicitor regarding an asset sale transaction.

The plaintiffs claimed the letter was relevant to prove the existence of a $250,000 promissory note, which the defendants denied existed.

The defendants opposed production on the grounds of relevance and solicitor-client privilege.

The court found the letter relevant to the plaintiffs' claim and held that statements of fact within the letter regarding the delivery of the note were not protected by privilege.

The court ordered the letter to be produced to the court in a sealed envelope for redaction of any privileged legal advice before disclosure.

The moving party sought an order under section 178(1.1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to release her student loan debts, which survived her 2012 bankruptcy discharge.

The court found that while the moving party acted in good faith, she failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that she would continue to experience financial difficulty to such an extent that she would be unable to repay the debt.

The motion was dismissed due to significant gaps in the evidentiary record regarding her and her partner's employment and financial circumstances.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a Mareva Injunction and a possession order obtained ex parte by the plaintiff.

The court set aside the Mareva Injunction but upheld the possession order.

In this costs endorsement, the court found the defendants were the more successful party, noting the plaintiff's ex parte motion was over-reaching and failed to respect natural justice.

However, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs because the defendants had failed to deliver up the purchased assets.

The defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs of $13,826.88.

The plaintiff commenced an action in Toronto for intrusion upon seclusion and other torts, alleging the defendant improperly obtained and disclosed information about her university enrollment during family litigation.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the proceeding to London, while the plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant to disclose the source of the information.

The court granted the transfer motion, finding that the holistic application of Rule 13.1.02 factors strongly favoured London, where both parties and most witnesses reside.

The court adjourned the plaintiff's motion to compel disclosure, holding that while the information is relevant and must be disclosed, piecemeal discovery should be discouraged and the issue should be addressed at examinations for discovery.