Cara Zacks

The plaintiff brought a motion for contempt against the defendants for allegedly breaching a court order that prohibited encumbering a specific property in excess of $309,000.

The defendant Lauri Partanen admitted to being in contempt and was given an opportunity to purge his contempt by paying $216,000 into court.

The motion for contempt against the defendants Eric and Janet Partanen was dismissed, as the plaintiff failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they intentionally breached the order, and Janet was not a party to the proceeding when the order was made.

The penalty phase for Lauri and the issue of costs were adjourned.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' causes of action were statute-barred due to a limitation period and that a mortgage commitment obtained by the plaintiff was unenforceable.

The court found that damages did not accrue until the plaintiffs obtained an unfulfillable mortgage commitment, placing the claim within the limitation period.

The court also rejected the argument that the mortgage commitment was unenforceable, stating that the defendants could not rely on their own default to make such a claim.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

Following a trial where the defendant was successful, the court received submissions on costs.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $44,390.72.

The plaintiff argued the amount was disproportionate given the amount at issue was approximately $53,000.

Balancing the principles of indemnity, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, the court fixed costs payable to the defendant at $24,000 all inclusive.

The plaintiff insurance broker sued the defendant insurer for $91,042 based on an erroneous preliminary profit share calculation provided by the defendant.

The actual accrued profit share was $2,402.

The plaintiff argued the erroneous calculation constituted a separate contract or a contract of insurance under the Insurance Act.

The court dismissed the action, finding the letter was not a stand-alone contract, did not constitute insurance, and the erroneous schedule did not bind the defendant to pay the mistakenly calculated amount.

The respondent, ErinoakKids, brought a motion seeking to strike affidavits, dismiss the application for judicial review due to the applicant's litigation guardian's failure to attend cross-examination, or compel cross-examination.

The motion also addressed the mootness of the underlying judicial review application due to recent policy changes in autism funding eligibility.

The court ordered the litigation guardian to attend cross-examination, reserved the issues of striking affidavits and mootness to the Divisional Court, and awarded costs to ErinoakKids for an unnecessary recusal motion brought by the applicant.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) registered by the plaintiff buyer on a commercial property.

The plaintiff had failed to close the $75 million transaction on multiple extended closing dates due to lack of financing.

The plaintiff argued the 'time is of the essence' clause had been waived by the defendants' conduct.

The court found no triable issue that the clause was waived, as each extension reaffirmed it and the defendants' subsequent communications were settlement offers, not waivers.

The court discharged the CPL, declared the plaintiff had no interest in the property, and ordered the deposits forfeited.

The plaintiffs moved to strike the defendant’s statement of defence for failure to pay a prior $12,500 costs award arising from a motion to lift the bankruptcy stay under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The defendant had declared bankruptcy before the costs order was made and argued the costs constituted a provable claim in bankruptcy rather than a personal post‑bankruptcy liability.

The court considered Rule 57.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the distinction in bankruptcy law between plaintiff’s and defendant’s costs.

Applying the jurisprudence flowing from Re British Gold Fields of West Africa Ltd., the court held the costs were provable in bankruptcy and did not create a personal post‑bankruptcy obligation absent a later fraud finding under s. 178 of the BIA.

The motion to strike the defence was dismissed.