Charles C. Chang

The applicant sought to recognize and enforce a Chinese arbitral award against the respondent for unpaid automotive parts.

The respondent opposed, arguing it was denied the opportunity to present its case when the arbitral tribunal refused its request to retain appraisers, and that enforcement would violate public policy.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding the tribunal's procedural decisions did not offend basic notions of justice and the public policy exception was not met.

The court also struck out portions of the respondent's affidavit evidence as inadmissible hearsay and strongly reprimanded the applicant's counsel for uncivil courtroom behaviour.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank brought an ex parte motion to amend a default judgment from 2015 to add an alleged alias of the defendant, "Joseph Raymond Wing," and to obtain a writ of seizure and sale in that name.

The court denied the requested relief, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient admissible evidence to establish that the defendant and Joseph Raymond Wing were the same person.

The court also noted the plaintiff's lack of due diligence in discovering the alleged alias earlier and expressed strong disapproval of counsel's conduct in bringing such a motion ex parte with inadequate materials.

The motion was adjourned to be heard orally on notice to both the defendant and Joseph Raymond Wing.

The moving parties filed a supplementary motion record and revised draft order following a previous endorsement that noted deficiencies in their materials.

The court found the new materials remained deficient, citing incomplete documents, missing schedules, duplicate email authorizations, and spelling errors.

The court declined to grant the requested relief but provided the moving parties one final opportunity to file a proper and complete consent and draft order.

The applicants brought a motion for consent orders to discharge construction liens and direct the return of security paid into court.

The court refused to grant the relief due to significant deficiencies in the motion materials and the proposed draft order.

These deficiencies included incorrect legal terminology (e.g., referring to discharge of a "Claim for Construction Lien" instead of a "lien"), failure to provide updated parcel registers to address sheltering liens, an improper preamble in the draft order, and an incorrect provision for the return of security that contravened Section 46(4) of the Construction Act.

The court emphasized the need for counsel to be meticulous in drafting and noted the waste of judicial resources caused by such carelessness.

The applicant sought an order to relocate with the children from Oakville to Sarnia and to vary the existing parenting time schedule.

She also requested retroactive and ongoing child support, including Section 7 expenses, and life insurance as security.

The respondent opposed the relocation and sought to vary the parenting time schedule regardless of the relocation outcome.

The court denied the applicant's proposed relocation, finding it not to be in the children's best interests due to the significant risk it posed to their relationships with the respondent and their half-sister, exacerbated by the applicant's diminished view of the respondent's parental role.

The court also dismissed the respondent's request to vary the Final Order, determining that no material change in circumstances had been proven.

The applicant's claims for child support and life insurance were also dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The applicant sought declarations and an order of mandamus to compel the Attorney General of Ontario to provide statistical data and court file numbers related to civil trials.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the open court principle does not extend to requiring the aggregation and generation of such bulk data, and that the Attorney General lacked the authority to provide the information, as it rests exclusively with the court.

The court also denied the applicant's request to transfer the application to the Divisional Court for judicial review, citing procedural deficiencies and lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant tenant brought an application for a declaration that it validly exercised its option to purchase two commercial properties from the respondent landlord.

The landlord argued the tenant had exercised the option earlier via an email and subsequently forfeited it by failing to close.

The court found the tenant clearly and unequivocally exercised the option on January 21, 2023, in strict conformity with the lease terms, and was entitled to purchase the properties.

The court also noted it would have granted relief from forfeiture if necessary.

Costs of $35,000 were awarded to the tenant.

The Crown brought applications under the Criminal Code for testimonial aids for two witnesses in a sexual assault trial.

The Crown sought an order for a child complainant to testify with her biological father as a support person, and for another witness to testify with a Victim/Witness Assistance Worker and by CCTV.

The defence opposed the choice of the biological father and opposed the aids for the adult witness.

The court granted all applications, finding that the biological father would not interfere with the administration of justice, and that the aids for the adult witness would facilitate a full and candid account given the nature of the offences and her past relationship with the accused.

The parties brought competing motions regarding relocation, primary residence, parenting time, and school enrolment.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the children from Oakville to Brampton, primary residence, and to change the children's schools.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought equal parenting time and for the children to remain in their current schools.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion for relocation, finding she failed to meet the burden of proof under s. 16.93(1) of the Divorce Act and that the move was not in the children's best interests.

The court ordered equal parenting time on a week-about basis and directed that the children remain enrolled in their Oakville schools.

The appellant estate brought a motion for a stay of orders requiring the production of a legal file, the examination of a law firm representative, and the passing of accounts pending its appeal.

The court found that the appeal regarding the legal file and examination was moot, as those steps had already occurred.

While there was a serious question regarding the passing of accounts, the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court also noted that the appellant's litigation misconduct and transfer of estate property rendered its hands 'unclean', disentitling it to equitable relief.

The motion for a stay was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The applicant sought directions regarding the testamentary estate of Mary Frances Rae, specifically concerning the beneficial ownership of a property transferred by Mary to the respondent in 2004.

The core issue was whether the property was held on a resulting trust for Mary's estate or passed to the respondent by right of survivorship.

The court found that the respondent successfully rebutted the presumption of resulting trust with clear, convincing, and cogent evidence of Mary's donative intention, concluding that full beneficial ownership passed to the respondent upon Mary's death.

Counsel for the defendants brought a motion to be removed as lawyer of record.

The motion was dismissed due to the moving party's failure to comply with Rules 15.04(1.2) and (1.3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the disclosure of privileged and prejudicial information.

The court emphasized the need for compliance with rules and fiduciary obligations, imposing costs against the moving party.

The applicant sought a small estate certificate and directions on the validity of the deceased's will, specifically whether it was revived by subsequent holograph codicils after being revoked by marriage.

The court found that the will was revived under s. 19(1)(b) of the Succession Law Reform Act because the November 16, 2016 holograph codicil evinced the deceased's intention to give effect to the original will.

The court rejected the applicant's proposed four-step process under s. 21.1(1) of the Act, clarifying that s. 21.1(1) allows for validation of improperly executed documents expressing testamentary intent, but not for reading intentions into documents that are not clearly inferable.

This endorsement addresses ongoing disagreements between counsel, leading to a civil case conference.

The parties agreed to orders for the respondents to produce a realtor's complete file and for cross-examinations to proceed with documents marked as exhibits pending privilege determination.

The court admonished counsel for their uncivil and uncooperative conduct, emphasizing that civil case conferences are not for resolving civility issues and that counsel have a strict obligation to act reasonably and collaboratively.

The court ordered that no further motions or civil case conferences could be brought without leave.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an order to be removed as lawyers of record and for a charging order for their unpaid accounts.

The motion for removal was unopposed and granted, as the court found a breakdown in the lawyer-client relationship.

However, the motion for a charging order was dismissed with prejudice.

The court found that the charging order was not properly referenced in the notice of motion, violating procedural fairness.

Furthermore, the lawyers failed to satisfy the three-part Weenen test for a charging order, specifically lacking evidence of property preserved or recovered and risk of non-payment.

The court criticized counsel's conduct, concluding they attempted to "pull a fast one" to protect their accounts, and emphasized lawyers' continuing fiduciary obligations despite conflicts of interest.

The parties brought motions for summary judgment regarding child support.

The applicant sought to vary a consent final order to cap his child support income due to a significant income increase, arguing against "wealth transfer." The respondent sought to enforce the existing order and collect arrears.

The court found no material change in circumstances to justify varying the order, as the original order already contemplated income fluctuations and provided a mechanism for adjustment.

The applicant's motion to change was dismissed.

The court found the applicant's claimed expenses unreasonable due to lack of documentary proof, adding them back to his income for support calculation.

The respondent's motion to enforce was granted, and the applicant was ordered to pay $219,688.00 in child support arrears.

The applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after being successful in their application.

The respondent sought costs on a partial indemnity basis, arguing he was more successful.

The court found both parties disregarded judicial directions regarding costs and procedural law.

While the applicants were entitled to costs, the court found no basis for substantial indemnity.

The court significantly reduced the quantum of costs claimed by the applicants due to excessive rates and time spent on an uncomplex matter, and considered the parties' litigation conduct, particularly the respondent's worse conduct.

The applicants were awarded $25,000.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant, CIBC, brought a motion to dismiss or stay the plaintiff's action, or strike out the statement of claim, on grounds of res judicata, abuse of process, or failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and for security for costs.

The plaintiff, Stephen B. Sutherland, opposed, arguing for an exception to res judicata based on fairness and claiming impecuniosity regarding security for costs.

The court found that the claims were identical to those previously struck out in a prior "Collection Action" and were therefore barred by res judicata and constituted an abuse of process.

The action was dismissed, and CIBC was awarded costs.

The applicants sought relief from various fees charged by the respondent on a mortgage, arguing they breached the Interest Act and Criminal Code, and also sought production of documents and a declaration of prejudicial conduct.

The court found that renewal, administration, and NSF fees were not properly chargeable as no evidence of incurred costs was provided, applying s. 8 of the Interest Act.

Legal fees were found chargeable at an admitted quantum.

The request for declaratory relief was dismissed as it served no practical purpose and sought to predetermine future issues.

The court also heavily criticized both counsels for extensive procedural non-compliance.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's affidavits, arguing they contained inadmissible hearsay, opinion, argument, and constituted "fresh evidence" without leave.

The court emphasized the strict rules of evidence for affidavits, noting a troubling trend of non-compliance.

The court struck several paragraphs for inadmissible hearsay due to failure to specify sources and belief, and for inadmissible opinion and argument from lay witnesses.

The court rejected the "fresh evidence" argument, clarifying that the tests for fresh evidence do not apply to evidence filed before the main application hearing.

Leave to amend was granted for some struck paragraphs where deficiencies could be cured, but denied for others, particularly those containing opinion evidence from unqualified affiants.

No costs were awarded due to divided success and unreasonable positions taken by both parties.