3 total
Second summary judgment motion barred by res judicata and abuse of process.
The defendant moved under r. 21.01(3)(d) to strike the plaintiff's second summary judgment motion seeking damages for loss of value of a property arising from a failed real estate transaction, arguing the claim was barred by res judicata and constituted an abuse of process.
A prior summary judgment by Goodman J. had awarded the plaintiff partial damages but dismissed the loss-of-value claim for failure to adduce proper expert valuation evidence.
The court found that both issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel applied, as the same issue had been decided in the prior final proceeding between the same parties.
The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that r. 20.07 permitted a fresh claim for the same head of damages previously dismissed, holding that the rule applies only to relief not covered in the original motion.
The defendant's motion was granted and the plaintiff's second summary judgment motion was dismissed with costs of $7,500.
Tenant appeal dismissed as the Board's finding of good faith eviction raised no question of law.
The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy to allow the landlord's mother to move into the property.
The tenants challenged the Board's finding that the landlords required the unit in good faith for the mother's residential occupation.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the finding of good faith and intended full-time occupancy were findings of fact, and the appeal raised no extricable question of law as required by s. 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.
Motion to reduce child and spousal support dismissed due to payor's failure to prove material change in income.
The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking to increase his parenting time, reduce his child support obligation, and terminate spousal support.
The parties consented to changes in the time-sharing arrangements.
However, the court dismissed the respondent's claims regarding child and spousal support.
The court found that the respondent failed to prove a material change in his income or net worth, noting significant credibility issues and unexplained financial transactions.
The court imputed an annual income of $100,000 to the respondent and ordered that his support obligations be secured by a charge on his properties.
