Bloom

The plaintiff brought a motion to set a timetable for trial, while the defendants sought to dismiss the action for delay.

The plaintiff's lawyer cited medical and practice issues to explain the delay, which the court found lacked particularity.

Furthermore, a key defendant who provided independent legal advice had suffered a stroke and severe memory loss during the delay, causing non-compensable prejudice.

The court applied the Faris test and dismissed the action for delay.

The applicants sought declaratory and injunctive relief regarding an express right of way over the respondents' adjacent property.

The applicants were renovating their building, which required altering doors that accessed the right of way to comply with fire regulations.

The respondents blocked access to these doors and changed locks on the first floor.

The court found that the easement had not been abandoned and that the applicants' renovations fell within their ancillary rights under the easement.

The court granted a declaration that the easement was valid and ordered an injunction preventing the respondents from interfering with the applicants' use of the right of way.

The defendant moved to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff bank for a credit card debt.

The defendant argued he had an arguable defence of equitable set-off, alleging the plaintiff intentionally interfered with payments owed to him under a separate settlement agreement involving his company.

The court found that while the defendant did not move promptly or provide a plausible excuse for the default, he successfully established an arguable defence of equitable set-off.

The court concluded it was just to relieve the defendant from the consequences of his default and set aside the judgment.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs.

The plaintiffs conceded entitlement but disputed the quantum and requested payment in instalments.

The court noted the plaintiffs' history of non-payment of prior costs awards and concerns about the merits of their case due to related proceedings.

The court ordered security for costs in the amount of $93,419.70, deducting anticipated trial and mediation costs, payable in three instalments.

The defendants and the plaintiff brought cross-motions regarding whether the plaintiff's daughter could attend the plaintiff's cross-examination as a moral support person.

The underlying action involved allegations of elder abuse and a disputed property transfer.

The court found that while a support person could be appropriate given the plaintiff's age and anxiety, the daughter was not an appropriate person.

Because the plaintiff lived with the daughter and might feel pressured to tailor her evidence to please her caregiver, the daughter's presence would create a danger of substantive unfairness.

The defendants' motion was granted and the plaintiff's cross-motion was dismissed.

The accused was convicted by a jury of fraud over $5000 for his role in a scheme involving fake loans and unreturned due diligence fees totaling over $500,000 USD.

The court found the accused played a lesser role than his co-conspirator but still lied to victims, causing significant financial and personal harm.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence for large-scale frauds, the court determined a fit sentence was 3 years' imprisonment, which was reduced to time served due to pre-sentence custody credit.

A restitution order for 50% of the loss ($341,263.04 CAD) was also imposed.

The applicant brought a family law proceeding which the respondent argued was statute-barred under s. 7(3)(b) of the Family Law Act.

The respondent claimed the parties separated in 2001, while the applicant claimed they separated in 2009.

The court examined the parties' living arrangements, travel, and communications to determine when they separated with no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation.

The court found the parties continued to cohabit until June 30, 2007, meaning the applicant's 2010 proceeding was commenced well within the six-year limitation period.

The plaintiff, as assignee of a trustee in bankruptcy, brought a motion for summary judgment to recover $217,500 from the bankrupt's spouse.

The bankrupt had used his share of the proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned property to pay down the mortgage on a property purchased solely by his spouse.

The court found that the transfer was a transfer at undervalue under s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court rejected the spouse's argument that they were dealing at arm's length, noting that spouses are presumed not to act at arm's length and her self-serving affidavit lacked supporting detail to rebut the presumption.

Summary judgment was granted.

The applicant storage company sought a declaration that an initial certificate issued to the respondent insurer under s. 24 of the Repair and Storage Liens Act was null and void.

The applicant argued the insurer lacked standing because it had not yet indemnified the insured for the total loss of her vehicle.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the insurer had assumed liability for the storage fees under the insurance contract and was therefore subrogated to the insured's rights under s. 278(1) of the Insurance Act, giving it standing as a person lawfully entitled to the automobile.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a default judgment granting a divorce and corollary relief, alleging the applicant fraudulently induced him not to file an answer.

The applicant cross-moved to dismiss the motion and sought to introduce secretly recorded telephone conversations to rebut the fraud allegation.

The court admitted the recordings, finding their probative value outweighed the policy against such evidence in family law.

Applying the test for setting aside a default judgment, the court found no fraud but concluded the respondent had an arguable case regarding access and that justice required a full hearing on support and property issues.

The default judgment was set aside.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, which alleged a failure to provide a timely letter of reference, for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to amend the statement of claim to allege that the corporate defendant breached its policy to provide a reference.

The court allowed the amendment and dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the amended pleading sufficiently alleged a breach of the employment contract and related torts.

The respondent father brought a motion to change an interim support order, claiming he had overpaid support and was owed money.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for payment of child and spousal support arrears based on Minutes of Settlement.

The court calculated the respondent's obligations under the Minutes of Settlement, including child support, extra-curricular expenses, and post-secondary education costs, totaling $281,720.97.

After deducting the $234,783.89 the respondent had already paid, the court ordered the respondent to pay the remaining $46,937.08 in arrears.

The accused, charged with importing heroin, brought an application to exclude evidence obtained from a cell phone, alleging a violation of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found the accused had standing to challenge the search.

However, the court held that the search warrant was validly issued, as the Information to Obtain contained sufficient evidence even if the text messages obtained during a prior search incident to arrest were excised.

Alternatively, the court found that even if a s. 8 breach occurred, the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, as the police acted in good faith and the evidence was highly reliable and necessary for adjudicating serious charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 for his role in an investment scheme where funds were diverted from a promised offshore investment to a retirement home project.

A Gardiner hearing was held to determine if the accused was the directing and controlling mind of the fraud.

The court reviewed the accused's corporate positions, his role in soliciting investors, and his control over the flow of funds.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the directing and controlling mind of the fraud.

The moving party, a used car dealership, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the main action and crossclaim against it arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff was severely injured when a tire exploded while pushing a vehicle purchased from the moving party.

The responding party relied on the implied condition of merchantability under the Sale of Goods Act, alleging the vehicle's electronic traction control system was defective at the time of sale.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the operability of the traction control system at the time of sale and the risk of inconsistent findings of fact.

The applicants sought to stay a Notice of Arbitration delivered by the respondent regarding an oppression claim, arguing that the dispute involved a non-party to the arbitration agreement and shared factual underpinnings with an ongoing court action.

The court found that while the non-party issue was not a roadblock to arbitration, there was a real danger of overlapping evidence and inconsistent findings of fact between the arbitration and the ongoing action.

The court granted the stay, ordering all matters to proceed in the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant sought a declaration that an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property remained in full force and effect.

The respondent argued that the agreement, which was tied to a lease, had been terminated due to chronically late rental payments and other alleged breaches, relying on the principle that full performance was a condition precedent to exercising the option to purchase.

The court found that the principles of fundamental and anticipatory breach applied, rather than strict condition precedent.

The court concluded that the respondent failed to properly terminate the agreement within a reasonable time and granted the declaration that the purchase and sale agreement remained valid.

The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality for damages after a retaining wall on the plaintiff's property collapsed.

The plaintiff alleged the municipality negligently approved the wall's design and failed to follow a third-party engineer's recommendation to conduct a complete visual inspection.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an agreement that would create a duty of care regarding the wall's design.

Furthermore, the municipality's prior inspection and repair of the wall constituted a gratuitous undertaking, and there was no detrimental reliance by the plaintiff to ground liability.

The moving party brought a motion to strike a solicitor's affidavit filed in support of an estates motion.

The moving party argued the affidavit was an improper use of a solicitor's affidavit, contained scandalous and vexatious material, and breached settlement privilege.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the affidavit was properly used to provide non-contentious background facts, did not contain scandalous material, and that any potential settlement privilege issues were too intertwined with non-privileged material to be struck at this stage.