Claire Copland

Following a decision granting judgment in favour of the respondents on an application involving a mortgagee's right to sell property, the respondents sought costs of $270,292.15.

The applicant opposed costs on the basis that the respondents had provided a misleading answer to the court regarding the arm's-length nature of a proposed purchaser, which was subsequently assigned to an entity connected to an investor behind the second mortgage.

The court found the respondents' refusal to answer follow-up questions about the assignment and the relationship between the purchaser and the investor raised serious doubts about the accuracy of representations made during the proceeding.

Exercising its discretion to depart from the general principle that costs follow the event, the court declined to award costs to the successful party as a sanction for non-cooperation with the court.

The moving party, Hermina Developments Inc., sought a stay of an order permitting the respondents to sell a 26.7-acre parcel of land in Woodstock, Ontario, pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, Hermina failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court held that any losses could be compensated by damages and that the property was not unique.

The respondents were awarded costs.

The applicant, a local baseball and softball association, sought a declaration compelling the respondent, a provincial softball association, to grant it membership.

The respondent had denied the applicant's membership applications based on operating rules not contained in its by-laws.

The court found that the applicant had standing as a complainant under the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, met the membership criteria set out in the respondent's by-laws, and that the respondent had no discretion to deny membership based on criteria outside its by-laws.

The application was granted.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted against them on a personal guarantee.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by not explicitly considering the three inquiries proposed in Malik v. Attia for partial summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge implicitly considered all relevant factors, and that partial summary judgment was appropriate as it resulted in cost savings, resolved a significant discrete issue, and avoided inconsistent findings.

The plaintiff, Sabrina Homes Inc. (Buyer), brought a motion for leave to register Certificates of Pending Litigation (CPL) and an interlocutory injunction against properties owned by the defendants (Seller).

The court dismissed the motion, finding it constituted an abuse of process as it sought to relitigate issues previously determined by Justice Ramsay.

Alternatively, the court found the Buyer failed to satisfy the test for a CPL, specifically regarding the uniqueness of the property and the adequacy of damages as a remedy.

The balance of harm favored the Seller, who faced potential breach of contract and foreclosure if the CPL was granted.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the Seller.