Calvin Zhang

Lisa Snowball sought leave to appeal a Divisional Court order that had refused leave to appeal a Superior Court order.

The Regional Municipality of Halton moved to strike Snowball's motion for leave to appeal as frivolous, and Snowball brought a cross-motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in Snowball's motion for leave to appeal, reiterating that there is generally no appeal from an intermediate court's refusal of leave unless jurisdiction was mistakenly declined.

The fresh evidence did not alter the merits.

The Court granted Halton's motion to strike Snowball's motion for leave to appeal and denied Snowball's motion to adduce fresh evidence, awarding costs to Halton.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order requiring him to post $20,000 in security for costs.

The plaintiff argued the Master erred in finding he was not ordinarily resident in Ontario and in concluding the order was just.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the Master's factual conclusion regarding residency, including the plaintiff's limited time in Ontario, lack of assets, and intention to return to Malaysia.

The court also held the Master made no error of law, having properly balanced the plaintiff's access to justice against the defendants' need for protection from an uncollectible costs award.

The plaintiff insured sought coverage after his tenants caused an explosion and fire while attempting to extract marijuana resin.

The insurer denied coverage based on a marijuana exclusion clause.

The plaintiff argued that a subsequent amendment to the Insurance Act (s. 129.1) protecting innocent insureds should apply.

The court granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding that the marijuana exclusion clause applied irrespective of the amendment because it excluded a specific use of the property regardless of the insured's knowledge.

Furthermore, the court held that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively as it would affect the insurer's vested contractual rights.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage sought commission from the corporate defendants after an initial agreement of purchase and sale was terminated during the due diligence period, and a subsequent agreement was entered into by a different corporate entity.

The court held a mini-trial to determine the ownership of the corporations, the intentionality of terminating the first agreement, and the circumstances of the second agreement.

The court found that the two corporations were separate legal entities with different investors, the first agreement was terminated legitimately due to unsatisfactory due diligence, and there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed.