Chadi Yehia

In a motion for summary judgment, the defendants argued that the partnership plaintiff lacked standing because the alleged rights belonged to its individual partners.

During the proceedings the partnership sought to amend the claim to add certain partners as plaintiffs under Rule 5.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court considered whether partners could self‑represent the partnership and whether two of three partners could bring the amendment motion with the third partner’s written consent.

Relying on the Partnerships Act and the Solicitor’s Act, the court held that the partners could make decisions binding the partnership and were representing themselves rather than acting in a prohibited representative capacity.

The court directed that the motion to amend be heard by a Master before the summary judgment motion proceeds.

The applicant sought orders declaring a Toronto property to be a matrimonial home, authorizing a mortgage without the titled spouse’s consent under s. 23 of the Family Law Act, and staying a lender’s power of sale proceedings.

The respondent opposed the application and brought a cross‑application seeking cancellation of a matrimonial home designation and vacant possession.

The court held that the dispute was fundamentally a family law matter that should have been commenced under the Family Law Rules with full financial disclosure rather than under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Given deficient evidence, contested marital status, and lack of financial disclosure, the court declined to grant interlocutory relief to either party.

Both applications were dismissed without prejudice and administratively transferred to the Family Law Court, allowing the parties to recommence proceedings properly.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21.01, 25.06 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike paragraphs of the plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim, or alternatively strike the claim entirely, alleging it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous or vexatious.

The action arose from a long‑standing neighbour dispute involving repeated complaints to police and municipal authorities, and alleged malicious prosecution related to withdrawn or dismissed charges.

Applying the “plain and obvious” test from Supreme Court jurisprudence governing motions to strike, the court held that the pleadings disclosed arguable causes of action including harassment, nuisance, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and malicious prosecution.

The pleaded facts provided sufficient particulars and context to permit the defendants to respond.

The motion to strike was therefore dismissed and the plaintiffs were awarded costs.