Christopher S. Spiteri

The plaintiff tenant brought a motion seeking various remedies including contempt findings, striking the statement of defence, sequestration, and other relief arising from alleged repeated breaches of court orders by the defendant landlord and its principal.

The court reviewed a lengthy procedural history involving numerous orders related to lease obligations, discovery compliance, and remediation work at the leased premises.

The defendants repeatedly failed to comply with several court orders, including orders requiring document production, attendance at examinations and cross‑examinations, and completion of repair obligations.

The court held that the defendants’ persistent non‑compliance and disregard for court orders justified the extraordinary remedy of striking the statement of defence.

The remaining requested relief, including contempt findings, was dismissed due to procedural deficiencies.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for a declaration that $70,000 advanced to her daughter and the respondent was a loan, not a gift.

During the application hearing, the judge made several comments indicating he would have difficulty making an adverse credibility finding against the respondent because he was a police officer.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge's comments created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court set aside the judgment and ordered a trial of the issues due to the conflicting evidence.

A bankrupt applicant sought an order under s. 178(1.1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act declaring that the statutory non-dischargeability of student loan debt under s. 178(1) did not apply.

The court considered the applicant’s circumstances, including long‑term financial hardship, limited earning capacity, and significant personal and medical challenges.

Applying the statutory two‑part test, the court was satisfied the applicant had acted in good faith in connection with the student loans and continued to experience financial difficulty that would prevent repayment.

The court concluded the statutory criteria were met and granted relief permitting the discharge of the student loan debt.

Following a trial judgment, the parties made submissions on costs, the proper name of the plaintiff, and the admission of an engineer's report.

The court declined to alter the trial costs disposition, finding that neither the pre-litigation negotiations nor the parties' conduct warranted a change.

The plaintiff was awarded $850 in costs for a dismissed eve-of-trial motion brought by the defendants.

The court granted leave nunc pro tunc for the plaintiff to proceed under its current name and declined to admit additional evidence or reopen arguments regarding the engineer's report, which had already been considered as hearsay.

A contractor commenced a construction lien action arising from landscaping work and a subsequent window replacement contract with homeowners.

The homeowners counterclaimed for significant damages alleging deficiencies in landscaping and improper installation of windows that leaked and were not installed in a good and workmanlike manner.

The court found minor deficiencies in the landscaping work and significant deficiencies in the window installation, awarding set‑off damages for both.

However, the homeowners failed to prove the full magnitude of their counterclaim and the court limited damages largely to the reasonable cost of reinstalling the windows.

After applying set‑offs, the homeowners were ordered to pay the contractor the remaining balance under the contract plus prejudgment interest, with each party bearing its own costs.

The parties brought competing summary judgment motions in a construction lien action involving a modest claim and counterclaim arising from a residential contract.

The motions were opposed as premature due to credibility issues and the early stage of the proceedings.

The court emphasized the limits on a master’s powers to weigh evidence under Rule 20 and the proportionality principles under Rule 1.04 and the Construction Lien Act.

Concluding that summary judgment would likely delay resolution, the court endorsed a consent judgment of reference and directed that the matter proceed by way of a short summary trial before a case management master.

The respondent sought costs following the dismissal of the appellant's motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing the appeal for delay.

The court declined to award costs for the underlying Small Claims Court action, as the respondent had prior opportunities to seek them.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court reduced the respondent's claimed hours and fixed costs of the motion at $1,900 inclusive of HST.