Catherine Elsie Allen

The appellants challenged orders striking a defence and dismissing a related claim for disclosure non-compliance.

The court found the motion judge gave thorough reasons, exercised discretion within a case-managed context under rule 37.15, and committed no error warranting intervention.

The appeal was dismissed with substantial costs.

A residential condominium developer sought a declaration that communications from the Chief Building Official regarding parking requirements constituted appealable orders or decisions under the Building Code Act.

The developer argued that emails threatening permit revocation if occupancy permits were requested without adequate parking prevented it from applying for occupancy.

The court found that the emails were pre-emptive communications indicating the CBO's future intentions, not final decisions on actual occupancy permit applications.

As no formal decision refusing occupancy had been made, the court lacked jurisdiction to intervene.

However, the court maintained a temporary parking ratio of 1.1 spaces per unit pending the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision on the developer's parking variance appeal.

The court considered whether to dismiss the Schembri Action and strike Schembri’s defence in the Way Action due to Schembri’s repeated, prolonged, and intentional failure to comply with documentary disclosure obligations, including undertakings and multiple court orders.

The court found Schembri’s conduct deliberate and unjustified, resulting in significant delay and prejudice.

Applying the principles from Falcon Lumber and related appellate authorities, the court held that the exceptional remedy of dismissal and striking pleadings was proportionate and necessary to uphold the integrity of the justice system.

The decision addresses a motion by the defendant, S&P Data Corporation, to compel answers to four questions refused by the plaintiff’s affiant, Allison Drennan, during cross-examination on affidavits filed in a summary judgment motion.

The court reviews the proper scope of cross-examination on affidavits, the relevance of the questions, and the production of the CECRA application.

The court orders the plaintiff to answer the refused questions and to produce a redacted copy of the CECRA application, finding the information relevant to the issues of good faith and the merits of the action.

The court-appointed Liquidator of two companies sought advice and direction regarding the application of issue estoppel to claims by a shareholder, Christos Kommatas, and the payment of funds to another shareholder, George Vastis.

The core dispute involved whether Kommatas was precluded from seeking an order for the Liquidator to conduct a claims process as part of the liquidation, an issue previously raised and denied at trial.

The court found that Kommatas was indeed precluded by issue estoppel, as this specific issue was distinctly put before and decided against Kommatas in the prior trial.

The court also authorized the payment of $250,000 to Vastis as previously ordered.

The Debtors (corporate and individual) sought leave to appeal two orders made in a receivership proceeding: an Approval and Vesting Order (AVO) for the sale of two residential properties and a Sale Procedure Order (SPO) for vacant development lands.

The Court of Appeal considered whether leave to appeal was required under s. 193 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and, if so, whether it should be granted.

The court concluded that leave was required under s. 193(e) as the orders did not fall under categories allowing appeal as of right (ss. 193(a)-(d)), primarily because they concerned present rights and methods of asset realization rather than affecting future rights or the value of property in a way that would trigger an automatic right of appeal.

The court further determined that leave should not be granted, finding the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious, as the lower court's discretionary decisions were entitled to deference, and the appeal did not raise issues of general importance.

Granting leave would also unduly hinder the insolvency proceeding.

The defendants brought a motion to amend a previous order regarding a discovery plan and to remove a costs award against two individual defendants, Joseph Romano and Claudio Romano.

They argued that they failed to appear at the original motion due to insufficient notice, relying on Rule 37.14(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the amendment to the discovery plan by consent.

However, the court dismissed the request to remove the costs order, finding that the moving defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence that their non-attendance at the original motion was due to insufficient notice, which is a precondition for relief under Rule 37.14(1)(b).

The court emphasized that a party who chooses not to appear cannot later complain about the outcome.

No costs were awarded for this motion.

The applicant sought a finding that the respondent condominium corporation failed to meet its repair obligations under the Condominium Act, acted oppressively, and sought damages.

A leak in the applicant's unit, originating from a common element mechanical room, remained unrepaired for over two years.

The court found the respondent acted unreasonably in investigating and repairing the leak, causing significant delay.

However, the court dismissed the oppression claim, finding no evidence of unfair conduct or bad faith.

Damages were awarded for the applicant's wasted expenses from being unable to reside in the unit, and full indemnity costs were granted to the applicant based on the interpretation of "costs incurred" under the Condominium Act.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 32.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order to permit their consultant to conduct a Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment of a property.

The plaintiffs argued the assessment was necessary to determine if the property was contaminated, which was relevant to their claims of misrepresentation by the defendants regarding the property's environmental status and to the remedies sought (specific performance with abatement or return of deposit).

The defendants opposed, arguing the plaintiffs had waived an environmental condition in the agreement of purchase and sale and that the motion was delayed and an abuse of process.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding the inspection necessary and probative for the trier of fact, noting no prejudice to the defendants, and deeming the delay not unreasonable.

The court also provided directions for the parties to agree on a timetable for the inspection, mediation, and trial, and on the terms of the inspection.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered against their property, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to make full and fair disclosure on the ex parte motion to obtain the CPL, that there was no triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' claim to an interest in the property, and that equitable factors favored discharge.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing delay and disputing the defendants' grounds.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the defendants' extensive delay in bringing the motion was sufficient grounds for dismissal.

The court further found that the plaintiffs had made full and fair disclosure and that there was a triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' claim for specific performance, with equitable factors favoring the plaintiffs.

This appeal concerned the suitability of specific performance as a remedy in a failed real estate transaction.

The appellants (defendants) challenged the trial judge's order for specific performance, arguing that the property was not unique and that the corporate purchaser's intent was for investment, not personal use.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by relying on inadmissible hearsay evidence regarding the corporate principal's (Mr. Lin's) intentions, as he did not testify and was not proven unavailable.

The court concluded that the corporate structure and expert evidence supported an investment purpose, making damages an adequate remedy.

The appeal was allowed, the specific performance order was set aside, and the issue of damages was remitted for a new trial.

The respondent's cross-appeal on costs was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful application by the Applicants concerning mutual driveway easements.

The Applicants had served an early offer to settle that mirrored the relief ultimately granted, offering to waive costs.

The Respondent did not accept the offer and was unsuccessful in her defence and counter-application.

The court awarded the Applicants substantial indemnity costs of $75,000.00, finding that the early service of the offer did not negate the cost consequences under Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicants, members of the Geneva Park community and Friends of Geneva Park, brought an urgent application seeking declarations of trust (implied, constructive, resulting, or charitable purpose trust) over the Geneva Park property, an order for directions or investigation under the Charities Accounting Act, production of the sale agreement, a Certificate of Pending Litigation, and an interim injunction to prevent the sale of the property by YMCA of Simcoe/Muskoka (YSM) to a private purchaser.

The applicants argued that their historical donations and contributions created a beneficial interest or trust.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence to support the creation of any trust, no misuse of charitable funds by YSM, and that granting an injunction or CPL would be unjust and inequitable, as the sale was a reasonable solution for the financially struggling charity.

The Applicant brought a 14B motion seeking leave to file an affidavit containing a voice recording of conversations with the children, alleging the Respondent coached them.

The Respondent opposed the request and sought to file a responsive affidavit.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding the evidence in both affidavits and the recording to be unnecessary, unreliable, highly prejudicial, and of little probative value.

The court emphasized that parents should not gather evidence from their children and that the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) is the appropriate mechanism for ascertaining children's views.

An order was also made for both parents to refrain from involving the children in the litigation.

The respondent, Laura McCombe, brought a motion for disclosure, and the applicant, David McCombe, brought a cross-motion for disclosure and suspension of spousal support.

The motions arose from a previous disclosure order and an underlying motion to change spousal and child support.

The court addressed the ongoing disclosure disputes, emphasizing the need for "critically necessary" information to determine income, particularly for the self-employed applicant.

The court dismissed the applicant's request to suspend spousal support due to outstanding disclosure.

It ordered a structured process for the applicant to provide specific "critically necessary" financial documents and an explanation for an unconventional property purchase.

The respondent was ordered to provide a proper accounting of educational trust funds.

The applicant, Corona Steel Industry Private Limited, sought substantial indemnity costs from the respondent, Integrity Worldwide Inc., following its successful application to recognize and enforce an Indian judgment.

Corona argued for substantial indemnity due to the respondent's litigation conduct and based on an offer to settle.

The court found no basis for substantial indemnity due to the respondent's conduct, as their actions were within their rights to challenge the application.

Furthermore, the offer to settle did not qualify for Rule 49.10(1) consequences because it had effectively expired before the hearing.

Consequently, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, reducing the claimed hours due to Corona's initial failure to provide evidence on Indian law, which caused an adjournment.

The applicant sought to amend a previous judgment to correct the commencement date for prejudgment interest on a recognized Indian judgment.

The court granted the amendment, changing the interest start date from April 20, 2015, to April 8, 2013, as per the original Indian judgment.

This decision addresses an application by Nanaksar Satsang Sabha of Ontario (the Gurdwara) for the production of files from four law firms involved in prior litigation.

The central issue was the effect of a solicitor's lien on production requests, particularly concerning the validity of the lien when a solicitor withdraws from the record without cause or when the limitations period for fee recovery has expired.

The court ordered all four firms to produce their files.

It found that Teplitsky Colson LLP did not have a valid solicitor's lien because it initiated its removal from the record without demonstrating cause.

For Gray Whitley van der Valk, production was ordered with specific terms to preserve the value of its claimed lien until the resolution of the underlying fee dispute.

The defendant Global Safety & Equipment Inc. brought a motion to set aside service of the Statement of Claim and to stay or dismiss the action, arguing that Ontario was not the proper forum.

The plaintiff, Integrity Worldwide Inc., opposed the motion.

The court found that service outside Ontario was authorized under Rules 17.02(f), (g), and (i) as the claim related to a contract breached in Ontario, torts committed in Ontario (specifically, conspiracy where harm was suffered), and sought injunctive relief affecting Ontario.

The court further determined that Ontario had a real and substantial connection to the dispute, satisfying presumptive connecting factors for jurisdiction, and was the most convenient forum, as the defendant failed to identify a more convenient alternative.

The motion was dismissed.