C. Chang

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim to add new causes of action for specific performance and rescission.

The defendants opposed the amendments, arguing they were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to rebut the statutory presumption of discoverability, as there was no evidence establishing when the plaintiff actually discovered the claims.

The opposed amendments were denied as statute-barred or untenable, while unopposed amendments were granted.

The defendants were awarded costs of the motion and costs thrown away for an aborted examination for discovery.

The defendant moved to discharge an ex parte order granting the plaintiff leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against its land.

The plaintiff claimed an easement over the defendant's land pursuant to a Storm Water Pond Agreement entered into with a previous owner.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure before the ex parte master, including misrepresenting the nature of the alleged easement and failing to disclose a rejected development application by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority.

The court set aside the ex parte order, concluding the plaintiff had no reasonable claim to an interest in the land, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendant.

The plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an interlocutory order regarding undertakings and refusals on discovery, and the subsequent costs order.

The plaintiffs argued the motion judge erred in applying the principle of proportionality to limit discovery.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions on the issue of law and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The court also noted the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding factum length and motion record contents.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's construction of the Minutes of Settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly construed the Minutes of Settlement and that the appellant's explanation was not in the material before the motion judge and could not be considered.