Calvin Zhang

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs on a pay-as-you-go basis, asserting the plaintiff was ordinarily resident outside Ontario.

The court found persuasive evidence supporting the defendants' contention, noting the plaintiff's weak rebuttal evidence and refusal to be examined.

Considering the serious allegations of collusion, fraud, deceit, and conspiracy made by the plaintiff against the defendants, and the potential for substantial indemnity costs if the claims were dismissed, the court determined it would not be unjust to order security for costs.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post security for the defendants' partial indemnity costs.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, Unionville Education Inc. (UEI), seeking $41,443.46.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering UEI to post $20,000 in security for costs, payable in tranches.

The court found that UEI had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs, satisfying Rule 56.01(1)(d).

The requested amount was reduced because the defendants had asserted a substantial counterclaim and had engaged in unreasonable conduct, including failing to comply with discovery undertakings and serving motion materials late.

The court also set aside a noting in default, granted leave for the defendants to serve a statement of defence and counterclaim, and ordered a further discovery for one of the plaintiff's shareholders.

Costs of the motion were ordered to be absorbed by each party due to the defendants' procedural misconduct.

The applicant sought to recognize and enforce a Chinese arbitral award against the respondent for unpaid automotive parts.

The respondent opposed, arguing it was denied the opportunity to present its case when the arbitral tribunal refused its request to retain appraisers, and that enforcement would violate public policy.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding the tribunal's procedural decisions did not offend basic notions of justice and the public policy exception was not met.

The court also struck out portions of the respondent's affidavit evidence as inadmissible hearsay and strongly reprimanded the applicant's counsel for uncivil courtroom behaviour.

The Moving Defendants, Fulton Development Inc. and 2580867 Ontario Corp., brought a motion to strike all or portions of the Plaintiffs' statement of claim, which included derivative and oppression claims.

The claims arose from a failed real estate transaction, a $500,000 loan, and the alleged misappropriation and improper distribution of a $327,500 refunded deposit by certain directors.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the derivative and oppression claims viable and noting that the motion constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a prior order granting leave for the derivative action.

On consent, a crossclaim and counterclaim from a related 2019 action were consolidated with the current action, and the balance of the 2019 action was stayed.

The plaintiff landlords brought a summary judgment motion for unpaid rent and an eviction order against the defendant tenants.

The landlords had initially applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) but withdrew the application after the arrears exceeded the LTB's $35,000 monetary limit and the tenants stayed an initial eviction order.

The tenants argued the Superior Court action was barred by section 207(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act, res judicata, and abuse of process.

The court rejected these defences, finding the LTB application was properly withdrawn and no final decision existed.

Summary judgment was granted for $89,773 in arrears, ongoing occupation rent, and a writ of possession.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's affidavits, arguing they contained inadmissible hearsay, opinion, argument, and constituted "fresh evidence" without leave.

The court emphasized the strict rules of evidence for affidavits, noting a troubling trend of non-compliance.

The court struck several paragraphs for inadmissible hearsay due to failure to specify sources and belief, and for inadmissible opinion and argument from lay witnesses.

The court rejected the "fresh evidence" argument, clarifying that the tests for fresh evidence do not apply to evidence filed before the main application hearing.

Leave to amend was granted for some struck paragraphs where deficiencies could be cured, but denied for others, particularly those containing opinion evidence from unqualified affiants.

No costs were awarded due to divided success and unreasonable positions taken by both parties.

The appellant appealed an order vacating its claims for a construction lien and dismissing its breach of contract claims.

The appellant argued it was a 'contractor' under the Construction Act by virtue of an undisclosed assignment agreement, rather than a 'subcontractor'.

The Divisional Court upheld the Associate Justice's finding that there was no triable issue regarding the assignment, meaning the appellant was a subcontractor whose lien was registered out of time.

The court confirmed that the Associate Justice applied the correct test for a motion under section 47 of the Construction Act and did not improperly convert it into a summary judgment motion.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy and a subsequent order denying a review.

The Board found that the landlord required the rental unit in good faith for his own occupation and that the tenants failed to establish the existence of a three-year lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's factual conclusions were supported by evidence, including the landlord leaving his personal belongings in the unit, and that there was no denial of procedural fairness in the Board's treatment of hearsay evidence.

The defendant moved to discharge the plaintiff's construction lien, vacate registrations, and dismiss the action, or alternatively for security for costs.

The plaintiff claimed it was the general contractor via an unwritten equitable assignment from the original contractor.

The court found no triable issue regarding the validity of the assignment, meaning the plaintiff was a subcontractor whose lien rights had expired.

The court discharged the lien and dismissed the breach of contract and breach of trust claims, but allowed the unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims to proceed.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed as the defendant failed to prove the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario.

The Ouyang defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff under Rules 56.01(1)(a) and (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the defendants failed to prove the plaintiff resided outside Ontario under subrule (a).

However, under subrule (e), the court determined the plaintiff's claim against the Ouyang defendants appeared frivolous and vexatious, as the loan agreement was with a non-party corporation and guaranteed by another defendant, with no legal basis for the Ouyang defendants' liability.

The court also found insufficient evidence of the plaintiff's assets in Ontario.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post $25,000 in security for costs.

This appeal concerned a failed residential property transaction due to substantial water damage occurring shortly before closing.

The purchasers (respondents) sued the vendors (appellants) for breach of the agreement of purchase and sale (APS), seeking return of their deposit and damages.

The vendors counterclaimed, alleging repudiation by the purchasers.

Both parties moved for summary judgment.

The motion judge found in favour of the purchasers, ruling that the damage was 'substantial' under s. 18 of the APS, entitling the purchasers to terminate, and that the vendors had not acted in good faith.

The vendors appealed, arguing procedural unfairness regarding the pleading of s. 18, errors in factual findings, and incorrect damages calculation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings on s. 18 and good faith, but reduced the damages awarded by the cost of an engineering report.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of I.R. Smith J. dated February 25, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs in the amount of $5,000.

The appellant's property was destroyed by fire caused by tenants extracting marijuana resin, and his insurer denied coverage based on exclusion clauses.

After the loss, section 129.1 of the Insurance Act was enacted, limiting such exclusions for innocent persons.

The appellant sought to apply this new provision retroactively to his claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that section 129.1 does not apply retroactively to losses that occurred before its enactment.

The court distinguished between retrospective and retroactive application of legislation, emphasizing the strong presumption against retroactivity.

The defendant, Yin Liang, appealed an Associate Justice's order granting the plaintiff, Suevilia Development Corporation, leave to amend its Statement of Claim to add Ms. Liang's husband, Hanyu Zhao, as a defendant and to plead claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent conveyance.

The appeal court reviewed the Associate Judge's decision on the applicable tests under Rule 26.01 and Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including issues of non-compensable prejudice, limitation periods, and whether the proposed amendments disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's decision regarding the limitation period or the tenability of the fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent conveyance claims.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant moved to set aside a default judgment and notice of garnishment obtained by the plaintiff.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendant acted promptly upon learning of the judgment, provided a plausible explanation for the default due to improper service and lack of notification, and presented an arguable defence regarding defective products.

The court emphasized that the plaintiff's counsel failed to provide a courtesy copy of the claim or judgment to the defendant's retained counsel, and that the administration of justice favored a trial on the merits.

This decision addresses motions in three consolidated construction lien actions.

Sutton Forming Inc. sought a declaration on Homes by DeSantis (Lake) Inc.'s minimum holdback obligation under the Construction Lien Act and an order for payment from it.

The court clarified that the holdback is calculated based on the contract price for services actually supplied, not amounts paid, and rejected the owner's objections regarding certificate accuracy and set-off for deficiencies.

The court granted leave for the motion, declared the minimum holdback, and ordered specific payments to Sutton and its sub-subcontractors from the holdback.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST to the responding party.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence, alleging a failure to answer undertakings from earlier court orders regarding the production of financial statements, tax returns, and bank records.

The court found that the defendants had either answered or used best efforts to answer the undertakings, such as requesting documents from the CRA, accountants, and banks.

The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay $20,000 in costs due to the disproportionate expense incurred on the motion.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendant purchaser failed to close a residential real estate transaction.

The defendant's counsel of record requested an adjournment because the lawyer-client relationship had broken down, but the court refused, finding the request to be a delaying tactic.

As the defendant filed no responding materials, the court treated the matter akin to a default judgment and awarded the plaintiff $234,937.13 in damages, representing the difference in resale price and expenses less the forfeited deposit, plus costs.