Christopher G.T. Tan

The plaintiff brought an urgent, ex parte motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation against a property solely owned by the spouse of the alleged fraudster.

The plaintiff claimed she was defrauded of $425,000 in a diamond investment scheme and sought to secure the property for enforcement purposes.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no triable issue regarding an interest in land, as the plaintiff was not a creditor of the property owner and a CPL cannot be used merely as pre-judgment execution for a damages claim.

The applicant, a family health team, sought judicial review of the Minister of Health's decision to terminate its funding agreement without cause.

The applicant alleged the termination was made in bad faith to cover up fraud by the applicant's former board of directors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the decision to terminate the funding agreement was a private law contractual matter not subject to judicial review.

The court applied the Air Canada factors and concluded the decision lacked a sufficient public character.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence to support the applicant's allegations of bad faith or improper purpose by the Minister.

The successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following the dismissal of the action against her on summary judgment.

The court found that the plaintiffs had made unsubstantiated allegations of fraudulent concealment based on bare suspicion, took shifting positions on the limitation period, and rejected reasonable offers to settle.

The court concluded that this conduct was worthy of sanction and awarded the defendant $45,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis, reducing the claimed amount for proportionality.

The applicant brought an application which was heard on an expedited schedule.

The Divisional Court issued a brief endorsement dismissing the application with no order as to costs, noting that full reasons would follow in due course.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim against her on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiffs argued that the defendant fraudulently concealed her involvement in faulty renovations, delaying the discoverability of their claim.

The court found no evidence of fraudulent concealment and concluded that the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of their potential claim against the defendant well before the limitation period expired.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the claim against the defendant was dismissed.

The applicants sought to set aside an arbitrator's rulings in an ongoing shareholder valuation dispute pursuant to s. 46(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The applicants argued the arbitrator failed to provide adequate reasons for the valuation date, acted unfairly regarding instructions to the valuator, improperly allowed the use of hindsight evidence, and erred in admitting evidence from the respondent's expert.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Superior Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decisions were reasonable, adequately explained, and did not result in procedural unfairness.